On 1/26/14, 10:56 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Alfred Perlstein <alf...@freebsd.org
<mailto:alf...@freebsd.org>> wrote:
I'm not sure, I'm going to go load up healthcare.gov
<http://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 aside, to bring this thread
back on track, the important issues are:
* The development model used by aegis is likely the cleanest
development cycle I have seen (main reason for this is Peter Miller is
one of the few SCM and build management theorists [vs. just hacking
something til it works]). The model is namely (repeat as needed)
develop->test->review->integrate... note that test comes before review
for the simple reason to even get to review you must build correctly
and pass all your own tests (isn't this the main goal of automating
the port system anyways)... also keep in mind we can use this model
without necessarily switching to aegis per se. With or without aegis,
it would save the ports team a lot of time to be able to build and
test a port automatically before they spend any time reviewing the
code. Aegis, by default, enforces this model.
* GitHub *REQUIRES* all developers (including all port maintainers
-- not just the committers) to switch to GitHub. On the other hand,
if the ports team were to use aegis and/or cook, this would NOT
require any changes at all from the POV of maintainers. Even on the
ports team, most members would need to learn nothing more than 6 new
basic commands... (portmgr@ would need to learn a lot more though
depending on what kind of non-standard processing needs to be done in
integration).
Using git doesn't require switching to github. I'm not sure what you're
smoking that's leading you to believe that, maybe you should also try to
log onto healthcare.gov to figure out what's causing your level of
confusion!
* If there are modifications to the overall port system, switching
to aegis and/or cook would not require changes to individual ports
like GitHub seems to
I skimmed the rest of your message and nothing really stuck out as
something worth perusing. I guess I have to say is that I hope
you enjoy Agis so much that you and the 10 other people using it
are able to proselytize it to the success that git and github have
had. You certainly seem passionate about it!
It would be nice if you could refrain from commenting on stuff you
can't be bothered to "peruse."
Likewise!
-Alfred
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
