On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Nov 5, 2007, at 15:16, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
It's very pleasing to see the amount of work that has gone into
base since our last release, but the negative side of that is that
our current code delta between trunk and the last release branch is
huge. Therefore I propose we make a 1.6 release with a new release
branch from scratch, cut off from trunk ToT.
-) on the other hand, is there anything in particular anyone would
like to see *NOT* released to the public just yet?
I could think of one controversial change in trunk: the removal of
the "cd" command.
I estimate[1] that we have 339 ports (about 8% of our 4353 ports)
that still use the "cd" command. These ports break without the "cd"
command. If I have some time I'll see if I can fix up some of the
nomaintainer ones; others should do the same if possible. If we find
that we're close to the date when we want to release 1.6 and we
still have many ports using "cd", we should delay removing the "cd"
feature.
I greatly appreciate your effort to reduce the number of "cd
casualties", Ryan!
At 331 ports potential casualties and a ports tree sporting 4364
entries, almost 10% of casualties is not that acceptable to me. Other
than introducing workarounds for these Portfiles, or flat out shelling
out when we can't avoid it, don't we have an alternative that'll give
us the freedom Tcl's "cd" gave us, but without it's ugliness (changing
the underlaying working directory of the Tcl interpreter, nasty!)?
Kevin, at one point you said you'd give a MacPorts native "cd"
equivalent some thought (at the pextlib level, like fs-traverse?). Did
you manage to get anywhere? Landon, any idea you might have for us, to
minimize the bloodshed?
If there's nothing up our sleeves on this respect, then I'm afraid
that for the time being we're gonna have to resort to shelling out for
those ports that have no alternatives to get around calling "cd" (like
smart paths usage).... but maybe we can do that as breakage reports
start coming in...? thoughts? Should we delay 1.6 solely for these
ports if we have no other solution for them?
Regards,...
-jmpp
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev