On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Alfred Perlstein <alf...@freebsd.org>wrote:
> > On 1/26/14, 10:56 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Alfred Perlstein <alf...@freebsd.org>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 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! > Again not 100% correct. it does require you to have githup-like functionality (githup or a clone of it) if you want to do any sort of distributed repos... aegis does not (all of its distributions are in normal formats like tar.gz and patches [these are automatically generated on demand])... and more importantly your solution seems to revolve around requiring the use of a tool over the model that it enforces (which can be done by many different tools).... have you ever heard of making your requirements technology neutral and *THEN* seeing what techs (if any) fit the bill... this is how we found aegis in the first place... in some cases we may find (and I think the current port system may be one of these cases) that no new tools are needed; all that is needed is the reorganizing of existing manual procedures (which can then later be automated if desired). > * 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! > I at least took the time to check what GitHub could do and what it and what it couldn't... this is just common sense when criticizing something -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org _______________________________________________ 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"
