On 2018/07/03 01:01, Mike Burns wrote: > On 2018-07-02 18.02.08 -0500, Edward Lopez-Acosta wrote: > > Is there another way ports are tracked besides the mailing list so > > anyone can find a status without searching the archives? > > Not really, no. Mailing list archive + CVS repo are the best we have > right now. It's not that no one wants this to change, but the change > itself requires a lot of work. > > Really long, slightly ongoing, thread on how we could improve this, from > misc@: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=149789110906191&w=2 > > (That thread starts as being about bugs@ but ports is mentioned > somewhere in there, and the same concepts and concerns apply.)
In which people who don't understand what is needed of a tracking system (thinking it is a software/technical thing needing doing rather than an ongoing management thing) try to set one up ... Mostly the people that understand the task don't have the time/inclination to do it for a hobby. > > I know I have some submissions which I fixed up upon request but no > > idea if they were merged, and they are pending in the jasperla GitHub. > > Additionally, there may be half done ports already out there that were > > not merged, pending changes, no sense in people starting over on these > > The jasperla GitHub repo is convenient and nice for communicating > whether someone is working on a difficult port, but it is not a source > of truth. > > Note that I am just an observer (and port maintainer). > -Mike > Exactly, jasper@'s openbsd-wip repo isn't about tracking submissions, it's a place people can do some (possibly collaborative) work *before* it's ready, but when things there are in shape tarballs or cvs diffs should still be sent to ports@ as usual.
