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.
No comments:
Post a Comment