On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 06:44:09PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote: > Hi ports@ > > I have been talking with bmercer@ about moving our otter packaging from > the beta release (which appears every 6 months) to a weekly package. > This move is also applauded by the lead otter-browser developer > (stating that weeklies rarely have any regressions). Reasoning for the > change in case of OpenBSD. > > 1. We release every 6 months and it doesn't always align with a new > otter beta. Meaning that users have to wait for 6 months or more for a > new beta with potential security fixes. Going with weekly snapshots > regardless of when the tree is frozen should lead to a quite recent > otter browser release. > > 2. Doing a release every 6 months means that upstream doesn't get it's > code tested on OpenBSD until it's too late/almost too late. Having > weekly packages would expose problem on OpenBSD earlier. > > 3. Testing the package will get easier as weekly releases will add > functionality in incremental updates versus a code dump every 6 months. > > Notable changes since previous port: > - re-ordered one entry in the PLIST > > Notable changes since version 0.9.10 (app wise): > * F12 menu now exposes all modes for Images visibility (including > newly added option to show cached images only) and Plugins, > * QtWebEngine backend is now capable of saving pages in MIME HTML > format and as complete set of files, > * new toolbar visibility settings for full screen mode.
I'm in favor of this change. The diff seems good to me but since I'm biased it's best if we wait on others for oks. It was brought up that perhaps there should be a stable and weekly port. The dialogue was essentially that people would use the stable and never test the weeklies so there would be a lot of duplicate work for a rather counterproductive outcome. The weekly releases are the best path to track at this time and until it makes sense to do otherwise, I think this is the best route because of the reasons mentioned above by Adam. Cheers
