svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster

[John Marino]

On 2/4/2016 3:54 PM, Pietro Cerutti wrote:
> On 2016-01-26 12:23, John Marino wrote:
> I see ports-mgmt/synth is under heavy development, good.
> I have seen a fairly large number of commits to that port lately, and
> from what I've read in the commit messages, compatibility is not really
> taken care of at this point. I seem to remember one commit where one
> option changed meaning, another fixing a corruption issue, etc..
> This is *all good*, really, it's an indication that the project is
> progressing.
> But would you honestly advise people to use it in production?

Yes.
It's not at 1.00 yet.  I'm getting lots of feedback and testing, and the
commits are a reflect of that.  When there is no more feedback, I'll
move it to 1.00.

I could have picked another name instead of repurposing a command, but
for the long term, changing the command now to something intuitive is a
small price to pay.


> portmaster had its limitations, but I always found it to be reliable. At
> least, it wouldn't change the meaning of options under my nose from one
> commit to the next one.

It's a beta/release candidate before the first release.  I think it's
permissible.  Not ideal, but this would be the time to do it.

By the way (for everyone), why not at least *try* Synth before declaring
portmaster good enough?  There were some die-hard portmaster users that
changed over immediately and did not look back.  Some poudriere users
have changed, but not all (which is okay as poudriere is a fine tool).
But I would advise actually given Synth an honest test and then remark
on it.

John