Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fernando Apesteguía > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> > Unfortunately, nothing is happening. I expected to hear some voices > about > >> > certain

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fernando Apesteguía wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> > Unfortunately, nothing is happening. I expected to hear some voices about >> > certain ideas that have popped up, like: >> > >> > * can we cut off old and 'unloved'

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > > > Unfortunately, nothing is happening. I expected to hear some voices about > > certain ideas that have popped up, like: > > > > * can we cut off old and 'unloved' PR's in order to reduce the amount of > > work and make reassessment o

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Hi! > Unfortunately, nothing is happening. I expected to hear some voices about > certain ideas that have popped up, like: > > * can we cut off old and 'unloved' PR's in order to reduce the amount of > work and make reassessment of that amount There is the other view of this which says "PRs do n

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Unfortunately, nothing is happening. I expected to hear some voices about certain ideas that have popped up, like: * can we cut off old and 'unloved' PR's in order to reduce the amount of work and make reassessment of that amount * can we use people who volunteered to work on the PR's * can we inc

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

El 28/01/2014 16:04, "Daniel Siechniewicz" escribió: > > Hi, > > Just a little stick in this anthill: > > - I've seen a few people volunteering, but so far the reaction seems > to be: "oh, yeah, well, ah, cool". I'd expect, with all the talk about > how much they are needed, that they will be "sna

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/28/14, 10:04 AM, Daniel Siechniewicz wrote: Hi, Just a little stick in this anthill: - I've seen a few people volunteering, but so far the reaction seems to be: "oh, yeah, well, ah, cool". I'd expect, with all the talk about how much they are needed, that they will be "snatched" immediat

What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Hi, Just a little stick in this anthill: - I've seen a few people volunteering, but so far the reaction seems to be: "oh, yeah, well, ah, cool". I'd expect, with all the talk about how much they are needed, that they will be "snatched" immediately and coerced into doing unspeakable things (like p

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Sorry was just putting why I used the mentioned ports in context (I believe in real life examples instead of made up ones for that)... any other mention of it in the thread was only because it was a convenient example that didn't violate an nda or something else. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:29 AM,

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Am 2014-01-25 05:30, schrieb Aryeh Friedman: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) Nice to be able to plug something other then petitecloud as

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Hi! > There have been some messages in this thread about users volunteering > to check port PRs. > > What would this involve as to time and software setup on one's own computer? I use the following workflow: 1) daily update to the /usr/ports tree using cd /usr/ports svn --non-interactive

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

There have been some messages in this thread about users volunteering to check port PRs. What would this involve as to time and software setup on one's own computer? I have some limited time, but am not using poudriere. I don't want to be too disruptive to existing FreeBSD installation. With s

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 1/26/14, 10:56 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> >> I'm not sure, I'm going to go load up healthcare.gov to see if I can >> order myself some free aspirin after this "discus

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/26/14, 10:56 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Alfred Perlstein > wrote: I'm not sure, I'm going to go load up healthcare.gov to see if I can order myself some free aspirin after this "discussion".

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > I'm not sure, I'm going to go load up healthcare.gov to see if I can > order myself some free aspirin after this "discussion". > At least my build system has never caused me to need an aspirin (normal debugging is bad enough). Sarcasm

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/26/14 9:02 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alfred Perlstein > wrote: When your toy has a huge community that fulfills the requirements that I have I'll check it out. When switching to Aegis gets FreeBSD the same benefit

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > I'm not addicted to newness. I think you just hate anything that is > popular and you're butthurt that something that's may have been ahead of > it's time was missed out on. This is no reason to dig your heels in and > complain as tha

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/26/14, 6:43 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: ) If aegis is so much better then we should use it. Or everyone should use it... but why isn't everyone using it? Simple reason Peter Miller (the author of aegis/cook) for whatever reason *NEVER* tried to market his stuff while GIT made a specific

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

) > > > If aegis is so much better then we should use it. Or everyone should use > it... but why isn't everyone using it? > Simple reason Peter Miller (the author of aegis/cook) for whatever reason *NEVER* tried to market his stuff while GIT made a specific effort of attempting to get outside us

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 01/25/2014 11:38, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: We just recovered from cvs->svn switch I think noone at all is willing to do the job again. Git has lots of drawbacks and if badly handled with all the above, it will be a real nightmare. and That is said from someone who likes git (except that the

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Pawel Biernacki wrote: > On 26 January 2014 18:34, Big Lebowski wrote: > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > From: Big Lebowski > > Date: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:30 AM > > Subject: What is the

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 26 January 2014 18:34, Big Lebowski wrote: > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Big Lebowski > Date: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:30 AM > Subject: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? > To: freebsd-ports > > > Hi everyone, >

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

eally 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

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 06:04:52PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 3:48 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Yuri 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 >

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 06:01:16PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 4:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > > On 01/25/2014 15:48, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > >> Git hup (or*ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO > > > > But both Debian and Fedora do this with automated remote testing, and > >

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

gt;>>>>>>> notify >>>>>>>> the submitter, or succeed and notify the committers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Git hup (or *ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO >>>>>>>> >>>>>>&

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

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 t

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 26/01/2014 13:06, Big Lebowski wrote: > Does it have to be all-or-nothing situation, where we can do something > only if we have 20-50 people looking at 6-15 PR's a week, and we cant do > anything if we dont? Cant we start with 2-3 people (3 people so far > volunteered to do so, and I belive a '

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

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 tit

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

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 >>&g

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

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 ti

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 26/01/2014 14:05, Big Lebowski wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Gary J. Hayers wrote: At no point I've suggested anything regarding portmgr team, and I am not in position to judge needs of any changes in that place. It seems however, that with the portsmgr-lurker project they're handli

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Gary J. Hayers wrote: > > > On 26/01/2014 13:32, Big Lebowski wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Gary J. Hayers wrote: >> >>> Suspect this would work, however, the more committers the less the >>> quality >>> of work? >>> >> Is there any evidence to sup

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 26/01/2014 13:32, Big Lebowski wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Gary J. Hayers wrote: Suspect this would work, however, the more committers the less the quality of work? Is there any evidence to support that argument? Or is it just a fear of that? At any point if that happens, then

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Gary J. Hayers wrote: > On 26/01/2014 13:06, Big Lebowski wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Matthew Seaman > >wrote: >> Does it have to be all-or-nothing situation, where we can do something >> only >> if we have 20-50 people looking at 6-15 PR's a wee

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 26/01/2014 13:06, Big Lebowski wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: Does it have to be all-or-nothing situation, where we can do something only if we have 20-50 people looking at 6-15 PR's a week, and we cant do anything if we dont? Cant we start with 2-3 people (3 pe

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

n 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 &g

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 25/01/2014 10:35, Big Lebowski wrote: > >> Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you > >> > really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing > basis, > >> > my guess is that would be very wel

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Hello, On 1/25/14, 10:33 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: 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

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

> > 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 relat

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

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

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

I never said our selves it is outsourced to the developer/maintainer with > 100% automated stuff... once I am doing with the next small version of > petitecloud I will post the 6 line script we use to test the port > (including cranking up a few vm's)... have fun doing that anywhere else > > Got bo

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 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 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

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 3:48 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Yuri 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 a

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 3:41 PM, Yuri 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 l

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 4:05 PM, Yuri wrote: On 01/25/2014 15:48, Aryeh Friedman wrote: Git hup (or*ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO But both Debian and Fedora do this with automated remote testing, and they don't seem to complain. How is our ports different in this respect? I don't

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 01/25/2014 15:48, Aryeh Friedman wrote: Git hup (or*ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO But both Debian and Fedora do this with automated remote testing, and they don't seem to complain. How is our ports different in this respect? Yuri

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Yuri 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 comi

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

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

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Yuri wrote: > On 01/25/2014 05:43, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: > >> With the scripts it should be possible to fetch the patch of a PR, apply >> and commit it to your redports repository and do additional changes until >> you are okay with it. What is still missing is

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 01/25/2014 05:43, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: With the scripts it should be possible to fetch the patch of a PR, apply and commit it to your redports repository and do additional changes until you are okay with it. What is still missing is a script that helps committing the changes to the FreeBSD

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Alfred Perlstein wrote on 25.01.2014 22:41: Are any of these tools available on the other side? Ie, for port submitters? yes porttools for example, or some scripts inside Tools/scripts regards, Bapt Is there a primer on using these tools? /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/getpatch category/PR -- R

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 01/24/2014 05:30 PM, Big Lebowski wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what is > the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is only > growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that > would

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 11:52 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:26:30AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14 9:51 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14, 12:11 AM, Yuri wrote: On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlst

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:26:30AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 9:51 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On 1/25/14, 12:11 AM, Yuri wrote: > >>> On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > (maybe there is so

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:06:33AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 10:59 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:41:22AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On 1/25/14 10:32 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:27:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlste

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 10:59 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:41:22AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14 10:32 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:27:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14 10:04 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:41:51AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 10:30 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:25:07AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On 1/25/14 9:48 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:16:39PM -0800, Alfred Perlstei

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:41:22AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 10:32 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:27:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On 1/25/14 10:04 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:36:00AM -0800, Alfred Perlste

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 10:30 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:25:07AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14 9:48 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:16:39PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: To me it would speak of tooling as opposed to anything. Does the por

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 10:32 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:27:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14 10:04 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:36:00AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14, 9:28 AM, John Marino wrote: On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:27:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 10:04 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:36:00AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On 1/25/14, 9:28 AM, John Marino wrote: > >>> On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Still missin

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:25:07AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 9:48 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:16:39PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> > >> To me it would speak of tooling as opposed to anything. > >> > >> Does the ports system have a 1 or 2 cli

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 10:04 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:36:00AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14, 9:28 AM, John Marino wrote: On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Still missing the point. Git can sit on top of svn. Other than converting SVN to Git, I don't

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 9:51 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/25/14, 12:11 AM, Yuri wrote: On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes this all as easy github, but I

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14 9:48 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:16:39PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: To me it would speak of tooling as opposed to anything. Does the ports system have a 1 or 2 click interface for merging PRs like for instance github? Could ports take PRs in the for

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:53:41PM -0500, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > Making proper merge from github pull request it not that easy, you will > > need to > > fetch pull request as custom branches and cherry-pick them. That is really > > not > > convenient. > > > > devel/tailor was designed specificall

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:36:00AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 1/25/14, 9:28 AM, John Marino wrote: > > On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> Still missing the point. Git can sit on top of svn. > >> > > Other than converting SVN to Git, I don't know anything about that. It >

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:11:24AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 1/25/14, 1:14 AM, John Marino wrote: > > On 1/25/2014 09:55, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> On 1/24/14, 11:45 PM, John Marino wrote: > >>> On 1/25/2014 05:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Thus, are you volunteering for this

Fwd: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

-- Forwarded message -- From: Aryeh Friedman Date: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:34 PM Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? To: John Marino > You are solving the wrong problem. > And nobody is "reinventing" anything, which is weird to say

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Making proper merge from github pull request it not that easy, you will > need to > fetch pull request as custom branches and cherry-pick them. That is really > not > convenient. > devel/tailor was designed specifically for this case (the actual case it does is aegis <---> svn) but same basic idea

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 1/25/14, 12:11 AM, Yuri wrote: > > On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that > >> makes this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) > > > > g

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:16:39PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 1/24/14, 4:47 PM, John Marino wrote: > > On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote: > >> I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized > >> around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I ho

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14, 9:28 AM, John Marino wrote: On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Still missing the point. Git can sit on top of svn. Other than converting SVN to Git, I don't know anything about that. It would never be done in an official capacity. Git is not an official tool of FreeBSD

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

> By the way, this wasn't about switching to git (although that would be > nice), this is about leveraging existing tools. > > One can very easily use git-svn bridge to push git changes into > subversion. Or you can try to re-implement a patch queue based system > yourself using a bunch of duct tap

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Still missing the point. Git can sit on top of svn. > Other than converting SVN to Git, I don't know anything about that. It would never be done in an official capacity. Git is not an official tool of FreeBSD. > From what I'm reading you may kn

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14, 1:14 AM, John Marino wrote: On 1/25/2014 09:55, Alfred Perlstein wrote: On 1/24/14, 11:45 PM, John Marino wrote: On 1/25/2014 05:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs o

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Am 25.01.2014 13:35 schrieb "Big Lebowski" : > > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: >> >> >> Am 25.01.2014 02:12 schrieb "Aryeh Friedman" : >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > I think you've got me wrong - I am following freebsd-virtualization list >> > > very closely, and the ma

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: > > Am 25.01.2014 02:12 schrieb "Aryeh Friedman" : > > > > > > > > > I think you've got me wrong - I am following freebsd-virtualization > list > > > very closely, and the matter I've touched here is not my doubt on which > > > technology I

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Am 25.01.2014 02:12 schrieb "Aryeh Friedman" : > > > > > I think you've got me wrong - I am following freebsd-virtualization list > > very closely, and the matter I've touched here is not my doubt on which > > technology I should use, but rather a complaint on the state of jails > > related tools d

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 25/01/2014 10:35, Big Lebowski wrote: >> Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you >> > really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis, >> > my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way to set >> > that up. It would defin

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 1/24/14, 11:45 PM, John Marino wrote: > >> On 1/25/2014 05:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> >>> Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoin

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:47 AM, John Marino wrote: > On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote: > > I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized > > around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that > > people who can make decisions and changes would

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/2014 09:55, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > On 1/24/14, 11:45 PM, John Marino wrote: >> On 1/25/2014 05:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis, my

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/14, 12:11 AM, Yuri wrote: On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) github itself is closed source, but 95% of its functionality is based on git which is op

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/24/14, 11:45 PM, John Marino wrote: On 1/25/2014 05:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis, my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way t

Fwd: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Yuri wrote: > On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes >> this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) >> > > github itself is closed source, but 95% of its functionality is b

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) github itself is closed source, but 95% of its functionality is based on git which is open. One only needs to invoke 3-4 git

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/2014 05:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you >> really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis, >> my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way to set >> that up. It would definite

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes > this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) Nice to be able to plug something other then petitecloud as a possible solution to this... namely as far

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/24/14, 4:47 PM, John Marino wrote: On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote: I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that people who can make decisions and changes would notice it and consider t

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 25 Jan 2014, at 00:47, John Marino wrote: > >> On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote: >> I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized >> around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that >> people who can make decisions and changes would notice

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

I would be willing to help write some scripts to start/stop the VM's (PetiteCloud does a command line that will be better documented and such in the next version or two) On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Big Lebowski wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Aryeh Friedman > wrote: > >> >

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

> > I think you've got me wrong - I am following freebsd-virtualization list > very closely, and the matter I've touched here is not my doubt on which > technology I should use, but rather a complaint on the state of jails > related tools directly leading to the delays in handling of ports related

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote: > I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized > around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that > people who can make decisions and changes would notice it and consider > them, since as they say, the squeeky

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:22 AM, John Marino wrote: > On 1/25/2014 01:03, Big Lebowski wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:41 AM, John Marino >wrote: > > > >> On 1/25/2014 00:30, Big Lebowski wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On 1/25/2014 01:03, Big Lebowski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:41 AM, John Marino > wrote: > >> On 1/25/2014 00:30, Big Lebowski wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what >> is >>> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contribu

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:41 AM, John Marino wrote: > On 1/25/2014 00:30, Big Lebowski wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what > is > > the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is > only > > growing, not sh

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Big Lebowski wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what is >> the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is >> only

Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Big Lebowski wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I wanted to ask about the growing time of reaction to ports PR's - what is > the problem? It seems to me, as a ports contributor, that this time is only > growing, not shrinking, and there's no formal/automated procedures that

  1   2   >