ports tree tagging again

[Roman Bogorodskiy]

  Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:33:35PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> 
> > II Solutions
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I
> > propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it, 
> > so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all 
> > patches to HEAD first. Then they wait for two things:
> >   - For next run on pointyhat to find out if package builds well
> >     (for a start, we could wait only for 6.x/i386 builds)
> >   - User feedback. Like, if there's no complains like "ahh, it
> >     broke everyhting, ahaha, please backout!", so everything's ok
> 
> I'm not going to support this effort as part of the CVS ports tree
> (for the usual reasons when this comes up every few months), but

If this comes up every few months, then it's really needed, isn't it?

> there's nothing stopping you+your collaborators from maintaining your
> own stable ports tree in your own repository and providing your own
> support for it.  I think someone (kuriyama?) was in fact already
> doing this, so getting the project started would not involve much
> work.

That's wrong. That requires a lot of manpower, and without help from
every maintainer it would be very hard. And I personally have no enough
resources to provide binary packages for all supported arches (and I'm
not sure about i386 even). The efforts should be united, otherwise we
have almost no chances to get it work.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060817/1543735e/attachment.pgp