-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Skip Ford wrote: > Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: >> Developing in a vacuum is a recipe for disaster.... we are making >> fairly good progress believe it or not I only see an other 1 or >> 2 threads being needed before actual coding starts, *BUT* >> producing a system no one wants is pointless thus it is wise to >> gather as much input as possible... > > And that's fine if that's how you prefer to work, but everyone's > point is that it has nothing to do with the current ports system at > all so the talk doesn't belong on a mailing list dedicated to the > current ports system. It's just noise here. Research for a new > system from ports@ users belongs on a list dedicated to the new > system.
First of all not everyone has said a number of people (not including me) have said it is the proper place.... one thing is clear though there really is no proper mailing lists and wiki's have some problems covered below > >> why is it that everyone who sees the whole concept as being >> negative has offered no input what so ever about what should be >> done (even saying "the current system is fine" is useful to us) > > You've been told over and over what should be done. You need a > ports-ng wiki (or whatever you want to call your new system) and/or > your own mailing list. Posting a single message occasionally on > ports@ to point others to a new system in the works is perfectly > fine, but using a mailing list dedicated to one system to develop > another competing system isn't. If you need research from ports@ > readers, you post a message pointing them elsewhere, you don't do > it in a way that floods this list with 100+ messages. The simpler case is the seperate mailing list.... once there is a good idea of what is needed then moving to such a forum makes a great amount of sense and the 3 volunteers (including me) that have made firm commitments to work on the project do just this... but in the early design phases (deciding if the project is needed, the scope and gathering top level requirments/features) public input is critical and taking stuff out of a well established forum reduces the amount of useful input... btw we are basically somewhere between scope and top level requirement gathering (the internal mailing list is attempting to settle on a final scope statement so we can move to the final truly public phase which is systematic gathering of requirements) The wiki poses some issues due to the medium of wiki's vs. the medium of mail... the first of these issues is wiki's are terrible for discusssions and a very lively on topic discussion is the best way to iron out the 3 public phases... what wiki's are very good at is recording decisions and we defently plan to use a wiki for this... but besides for "the project should be done" not enough decisions have been made to justify a record of them currently, as soon as the scope is decided internally we will produce some docs that will justify a wiki (and since they are still in the public phases I will post them here for discussion purposes)... as soon the second set of docs (top level requirements) is produced all the work will occur privately except for one final post that details the conceptual model for public comment > > You've been given lots of sound advice on how to proceed and you've > listened to none of it. You haven't heard what anyone has said > thus far. Just start a wiki already like you've been told to do by > those who already know exactly what they're doing, and aren't still > trying to figure out how to figure out what it is they might want > to do someday. On techinical issues I have heard almost all of it and have substantially revised my mental conceptual model based on it. But as far as what should be public and what should be private good software engineering not only says the minority is wrong but I am using what is considered the industry standard method (as much as possible when it is not f2f). If the industry standard doesn't agree with FreeBSD's method then it does make sense to check if the FreeBSD model can not be improved in light of newer data. In sort the main metadebate is on cultural differences and that is sad because culture should have nothing to do with the tech aspects. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHYxvQzIOMjAek4JIRAsRSAJ9YBTglveSohfNWAaKdvG3JrKUq7gCfUI3H v65HbjHbwZs+JryHeOqXOr4= =353C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
