What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Jim Ohlstein jim at ohlste.in
Sun Jan 26 03:20:33 UTC 2014


On 1/25/14, 9:04 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 1/25/14 3:48 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/25/2014 14:44, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
>>>> The key seems to be that no one has time to do the stuff they really
>>>> want
>>>> to do (get new ports into the system)... to that end automating
>>>> everything
>>>> that can be automated is sure help free up comitter time so they can
>>>> look
>>>> at what is interesting
>>> Yes. I just can't imagine any generic port tests that can't be automated
>>> and coded into the script once and for good.
>>> Ideal system should be like github with the added automated testing
>>> between pull request submission and merge. It should either fail and
>>> notify
>>> the submitter, or succeed and notify the committers.
>> Git hup (or *ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO
> You just don't get it.
> Again, you just really, really, don't get it.
> You WANT a gateway to a remote service that the project does not have to
> handle.
> Why?  Because then we offload the problem to another org.
> The FreeBSD project should be about innovation in OS design, platform
> and software.  Ops work is bunk and just slows us down.
> The more we can outsource the better we'll be.  (and what if that
> service blows up?  well we move on!  it's simple!)
> Continuing to insist that we run the services ourselves it just wasting
> our limited resources.  Not only that but we get emotionally attached to
> technologies that are old, dying and dead when off the shelf stuff works
> just fine.

I've read all 60 or so messages in this thread and there really are two 
related but distinct issues here.

The thread title is "What is the problem with ports PR reaction 
delays?". This has meandered into a philosophical debate about who knows 
what and who knows squat about version control systems, whether we need 
to maintain certain requirements, testing ports, etc.

I like the KISS approach myself. This can be boiled down to those two 
issues, one of which is a symptom of the other. Arguing and debating 
over a long term solution to the OP's question does nothing to solve the 
problem in the short to intermediate term. There are 1680 current ports 
related PR's at this moment.

As we all know, the committers are volunteers, mostly with real jobs and 
real lives and they obviously cannot keep up with the current load. The 
short to medium term solution for that is more committers. I'll add my 
name to the list of those who are willing to step in and help to clean 
up the mess. I'm certain that if a request went out, there would be many 
who are more qualified than I.

At the same time, a group of interested individuals should offer input 
to the folks who already are looking at changing the bug reporting 
system away from gnats - 
https://wiki.freebsd.org/Bugtracking/BugRelocationPlan. Doing it in one 
fell swoop might make sense. It's "ripping off the bandaid" but I'd 
rather do it only once myself.

What does *not* make sense is a new port for what might be a very useful 
tool waiting since September for someone to look at it. Arguing over git 
and subversion et alia does nothing to fix that. As they say on the ESPN 
NFL pregame show, "C'mon man!".

Jim Ohlstein

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list