xorg ports roadmap?

[vehemens]

On Friday 27 November 2009 12:53:35 Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2009-Nov-26 14:55:40 -0800, vehemens <vehemens at verizon.net> wrote:
> >If your having so many problems with these updates, why not just split
> > ports into current and stable branches?
>
> This isn't as easy as it sounds because there are interactions between
> so many different pieces.  Back when X.org/XFree86 was a small number
> of ports (basically server, libraries and base clients), it wouldn't
> have been too hard.  X.org now comprises something like 250 pieces
> with not-very-well documented interactions.
>
> It might help if X.org could be cleanly split into client ports and
> server ports but even that's not possible because they both depend
> on a number of X-related libraries.

The suggestion was to have the entire ports tree as both a current and stable 
branch, then using the same (similar?) rules as used for the source branches.

A ports freeze would mean that changes to the stable branch would be limited, 
but work could still go on in the current branch.

The MFC process could be semi-automated.