Releasing code as portgroup instead of in base/
Daniel J. Luke
dluke at geeklair.net
Fri Oct 10 07:05:55 PDT 2014
On Oct 9, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 2014, at 2:55 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> Moving this code to a portgroup would make it possible for us to fix this problem and any other problems that might come up later without having to produce a new MacPorts release.
>> I think we really should move in the other direction:
>> -make releases easier
>> -less code in portgroups (move as much as possible to base/)
>> someone can say "I did foo with macports version x.y.z", it's hard for an end-user to know "I did foo with macports verison x.y.z and the revision of portgroup blah that I got in my last portsync which corresponds with rXXXXXX in your repo"
> Sorry for my delay in responding to this.
> I disagree that we should move as many portgroups as possible into base. Moving the portgroups out of base and into the ports tree years ago has been of great benefit in encouraging the development of portgroups. No matter how agile the release process of base may become, nothing compares to being able to put a file in a directory and having it available to the entire MacPorts userbase in minutes.
right - and I'm saying that that's actually a problem
'easy' injection of code into the tree without going through any kind of release process/review is something we should minimize.
there's certainly a need to balance the issues here, and my suggestion is that if we make releases easier (and do them more often), it makes it so that more of the portgroup code can live in base/ and that's a good thing.
Daniel J. Luke
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
| Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily |
| reflect the opinions of my employer. |
More information about the macports-dev