Doug Barton wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
Wouldn't it be sufficient to force major component testers (in
this case Xorg 7.2) to use periodic snapshots of the ports tree
(possibly CVS branching), while allowing continued development in the
ports tree?
There will be very few truly major projects of this nature ever in the
life of the ports tree. In fact, one of the reasons this IS such a major
change is that things are being organized better now so that future
updates to even major systems like X won't be anywhere near so painful.
Part of my concern is based in the fact that this might be causing
issues with customer integrity,
Whose customers are you talking about? FreeBSD doesn't have customers,
it has users.
Sorry -- thinking of work =\.. I meant 'end users'.
thus degrading confidence in FreeBSD as a production product.
Confidence would have been degraded a lot more if the xorg7 changes were
rushed into the tree causing massive breakage and unhappiness for our
users.
True, but I wonder how end users are going to take to the fact that a
lot of ports were removed or changed in the 7.2 integration period. I've
noticed a lot of 'deletes' for ports when running csup today.
The portmgr team was in a no-win situation here. I personally am glad
that they erred on the side of caution.
Perhaps, but I think that some of these things maybe could have been
handled differently ( / better?) if source branching was in place, both
for devs and for end-users in the X.org 7.2 evaluation phase.
Doug
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
