ports tree tagging again

[Peter Jeremy]

On Wed, 2006-Aug-16 16:33:35 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>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

There are severe logistical problems: Ports are currently expected to
build for at least 3 different src branches, with between 2 and 6
different architectures in each.  Multiply this by over 15,000 ports
and that process isn't going to work.  And this ignores interactions
between port versions - you often can't upgrade a port in isolation
but need to have consistent revisions.

>If both conditions are meat, the commit may be backported to STABLE.

How long are you going to wait for this?  What happens if the commit
to HEAD works ok on some architecture/branches and not others?

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060817/195ccdf1/attachment.pgp