> On 3 Dec, 2017, at 14:31, Michelle Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Adam Weinberger wrote: >> >> You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in >> HEAD sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have >> breakages, or users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the quarterly >> branch. Portmaster works perfectly on quarterly. Always has. >> > > Quarterly is just a frozen HEAD with no/minute chances of security patches or > other changes... why would you want to be there? I couldn't even get someone > to patch a security issue before the pkg_*->pkgng change.. was patched 4 > days later despite having the patch in the bug before... and despite asking > for the patch to be put in the quarterly they didn't either. One continues > to watch the exodus.
The MFH process was very complicated at first, and many committers didn't participate in it. Now it's largely automated and expected of all ports committers. The quarterly branches these days receive essentially all security fixes and most build fixes. As with all things FreeBSD, it's a best-effort process. Quarterly is mostly static, and receives no unnecessary updates. It also receives no known breakages. That's the tradeoff between it and head. We do the best we can, and if things get missed it's because we need more community involvement. If you can't handle the flux of HEAD, stay on quarterly. If you need the cutting-edge, use HEAD. As you noted, we are strained for resources to keep quarterly going; we simply don't have the ability to provide another in-between level. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger [email protected] https://www.adamw.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
