What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[John Marino]

On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 
> Still missing the point.  Git can sit on top of svn.
>

Other than converting SVN to Git, I don't know anything about that.  It
would never be done in an official capacity.  Git is not an official
tool of FreeBSD.


> From what I'm reading you may know how to use git casually, but not in
> any other fashion than "it's like svn, but I have to commit twice".

So you continue to be make bad assumptions then.
I am a committer to DragonFly.  We use git for src and ports.  We use it
more than casually.  The maintenance of vendor branches is not standard
at all, for example.


> One can very easily use git-svn bridge to push git changes into
> subversion. Or you can try to re-implement a patch queue based system
> yourself using a bunch of duct tape and bailing wire and likely get
> frustrated and either never complete it OR complete it and it's just not
> even half as good as git as a patch manager.

It's a solution looking for a problem.  I'm not hearing anyone grip
about the patches.  It's not the bottleneck.  I can only conjecture, but
I from what I've seen, there's no way git bridges will be accepted as
official methods.


> Use the existing tools.
> 
> I implore you to explore the idea of using existing tools to solve the
> problem, or at least solve a part of the problem, instead of trying to
> reinvent functionality that already exists.


You are solving the wrong problem.
And nobody is "reinventing" anything, which is weird to say because
GNATS is far older than git and github.  The tool set, archaic or not,
is not presenting any kind of bottleneck.

John