From nobody Fri Dec 31 18:29:44 2021 X-Original-To: dev-commits-src-all@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366511926F22; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 18:29:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JQYb46sYPz3lZb; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 18:29:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 1BVITigE008458 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Dec 2021 20:29:47 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua 1BVITigE008458 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 1BVITiJ1008457; Fri, 31 Dec 2021 20:29:44 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 20:29:44 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Ed Maste Cc: Warner Losh , Kyle Evans , Stefan Esser , Antoine Brodin , src-committers , "" , dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports Management Team Subject: Re: git: e2650af157bc - main - Make CPU_SET macros compliant with other implementations Message-ID: References: <202112301154.1BUBsR1q017491@gitrepo.freebsd.org> List-Id: Commit messages for all branches of the src repository List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-src-all List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5 (2021-03-20) on tom.home X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JQYb46sYPz3lZb X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 01:08:25PM -0500, Ed Maste wrote: > Some time ago I started a best practises doc for potentially > disruptive src changes (and have received some feedback, including > from folks on this thread). I'll paste it here for further discussion. > --- > This is the suggested process for introducing tool chain and other > changes in the src tree that may cause significant disruption to > ports. Some examples of potentially disruptive changes are: > > - major compiler updates > - OpenSSL updates > - adding a library or system call (such as memfd) that is already > present on other systems > - changing the semantics or APIs of existing libraries > > The goal of this document is not to be overly prescriptive, but to > document a process that has produced good results in the past, avoid > surprises among ports committers and maintainers, and clarify the > expectation on port maintainers to collaborate on addressing fallout > from the potentially disruptive change. The project gets the best > results when everybody works together, in good faith, to solve > problems with disruptive changes. > > Disruptive change process: > > 1. Request a ports exp-run with the desired change. This is used to > determine the initial impact of the change. If the exp-run shows no > impact or minimal impact the rest of the process may be skipped. > > 2. Verify that important packages build, and fix identified failures. > Maintainers of important packages should be prepared to assist. > Important (critical?) packages include: > > - pkg > - binutils > - gcc > … (need to expand this list) > > 3. Post a Heads-Up email to at least the FreeBSD-current and > FreeBSD-ports mailing lists with a proposed schedule. Where > appropriate add other mailing lists, such as FreeBSD-toolchain. Allow > at least three weeks between the Heads-Up email and the commit. > > 4. In the period between the Heads-Up email and the commit, developers > proposing the change and maintainers of ports affected by the change > work together to resolve any ports failures. And what to do if developers are not 'collaborative'? For my case, there was a silence from ports maintainers, even after - a tool was proposed - a request for feedback was issued > > 5. Request additional exp-runs as necessary (by adding a comment in > the existing PR). > > 6. Commit may proceed once all important/critcal ports build, and either: > > - The deadline proposed in the Heads-Up email has been reached > - There is a concensus that remaining failures are insignificant (for > example, a small number of unmaintained leaf ports are the only > outstanding failures) > > 7. Collaborate on fixing any outstanding issues (e.g. broken leaf ports) This is good wishes, at best. This assessment is backed by my experience both with ino64, and with sched_get/setaffinity. Either source changes are blocked indefinitely, or source committer is tasked with fixing all broken ports.