xorg ports roadmap?

[Robert Noland]

On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:01 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> On Friday 27 November 2009 12:53:35 Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > On 2009-Nov-26 14:55:40 -0800, vehemens <vehemens at verizon.net> wrote:
> > >If your having so many problems with these updates, why not just split
> > > ports into current and stable branches?
> >
> > This isn't as easy as it sounds because there are interactions between
> > so many different pieces.  Back when X.org/XFree86 was a small number
> > of ports (basically server, libraries and base clients), it wouldn't
> > have been too hard.  X.org now comprises something like 250 pieces
> > with not-very-well documented interactions.
> >
> > It might help if X.org could be cleanly split into client ports and
> > server ports but even that's not possible because they both depend
> > on a number of X-related libraries.
> 
> The suggestion was to have the entire ports tree as both a current and stable 
> branch, then using the same (similar?) rules as used for the source branches.
> 
> A ports freeze would mean that changes to the stable branch would be limited, 
> but work could still go on in the current branch.
> 
> The MFC process could be semi-automated.

This is hard enough to manage in src for one -CURRENT and 2/3 stable
branches... Ports would be insanity and would in no way help to address
the current issues or reduce the amount of work needed to get things
done.

robert.

-- 
Robert Noland <rnoland at FreeBSD.org>
FreeBSD