Port development status

[Daniel J. Luke]

On May 23, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Rainer Müller <raimue at macports.org> wrote:
> The second approach with multiple versions per port would allow to add
> new versions without forcing everyone to upgrade immediately. This opens
> the possibility to test new versions with a few brave testers without
> the need to add and remove custom repositories to sources.conf all the
> time. Basically, I think this would reflect the status flag that spun
> off this thread.
> 
> However, previously both of these possible ways were ruled out because
> the additional overhead for the maintainers did not seem worth the effort.

It would be nice if ports had rich auto-generated meta-data that could be used to indicate some of this stuff.

ie, the ports themselves could live in a remote repo somewhere, ‘port’ could say “I want subversion latest version” (default) or “I want subversion latest version with a successful buildbot build” or “I want subverison latest version that passes its test suite” or “I want subversion latest version installed by at least 10 people at least one week ago” (or combinations of those).

(not that I’m volunteering to work on this ;-) ).

--
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.          |                          
+========================================================+