Hi Ronald and all,
Sorry for the wait on this. I didn't mean to stir up any controversy. I think the general guidelines are good. I have requested many times that a particular package update be backported into quarterly. I was mainly just hoping to put this out in the open so more people might think about it. Jan, you are absolutely right about hyprland. I was trying to come up with a negative example of why someone might not want to update quarterly right away, but it was a bad example indeed. Thanks for the discussion here. I appreciate all of the replies. Henrich Jan 5, 2024, 07:44 by ronald-li...@klop.ws: > > > Van:> henrichhart...@tuta.io > Datum:> 4 januari 2024 02:52 > Aan:> Freebsd Ports <freebsd-po...@freebsd.org> > Onderwerp:> Latest and quarterly best practices > >> Hi, >> >> I'm not a committer so this shouldn't carry much weight. Just wanted to >> express my opinion. >> >> I think the latest and quarterly setup is a nice and clever one. >> Unfortunately, it seems fairly often that ports that should probably be >> cherrypicked into quarterly are not. Occasionally, some updates make it into >> quarterly that don't make clear sense to me, but this is much more rare. >> >> I propose that as a rule of thumb, if a package uses Semantic Versioning >> (semver) and the changes are non-breaking, it should be cherry picked into >> quarterly. Especially if this is only a patch level change and not a minor, >> but likely either way. >> >> A couple of recent examples that I've seen, which I would like to point out >> Please note that I am *not* picking on anyone and this is just what I'm more >> familiar with. >> >> net-p2p/monero-cli was updated from 0.18.2.2_2 to 0.18.3.1 on the 19th of >> October. Any software that is blockchain related tends to need to be as >> current as possible for security reasons. Quarterly still has 0.18.2.2_2 >> (although 2023Q1 will be cut soon, I assume) which is quite out of date now. >> >> An opposite case, and this one may be truly a no harm no foul case: >> x11-wm/hyprland was updated from 0.33.1_2 to 0.34.0, and cherrypicked to >> quarterly. There were a number of changes in this release, and I personally >> would be hesitant to recommend such a cherrypicking unless there were known >> issues with 0.33.1 that users had complained about. Otherwise, since it's an >> offline window manager, it seems like waiting for the quarterly release >> would make the most sense. Now in this case I don't know the context and >> cherrypicking may have made complete sense -- I'm just using it as an >> example to try and explain my thoughts. >> >> Please don't feel at all like I'm being nitpicky. I'm just hoping to >> contribute how I can and it seems like the processes around cherrypicking >> could be improved. I love FreeBSD and appreciate the tremendous amount of >> work that has gone into it. It really is great because of the contributions >> of many I'm just hoping to make it even greater! >> >> Thank you for reading, and Happy New Year! >> >> Sincerely, >> Henrich >> >> >> > > Thanks for your ideas. > > There are some guidelines to this. > https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/QuarterlyBranch > > But it is not a “process” as in somebody is responsible for this. It is > mostly up to the maintainer of the port to cherry-pick. > > So if you miss something in a Q branch I think it is fastest to: > 1- contact the maintainer of the port by mail or PR. > 2- contact this ports mailing list. > > Does this resolve anything of your thoughts? > > Regards, > Ronald. > >
