This new port references the development version (master on github) of the fish shell.
Created attachment 145257 [details] the port shar file
Can you please provide either) 1) "poudriere testport" or "poudriere bulk -t" logs (preferred) 2) redports or tinderbox logs 3) "make check-plist" followed by "make stage-qa" output to provide confidence in the quality of the submission
Created attachment 145301 [details] updated shar
Created attachment 145305 [details] poudriere testport logs
Attached the poudriere testport log files. Had to remove the gcc build log because this file was too big.
I assume the updated shar came as a result of running these tests? Weird log, it seems to wrapped in html Also, it seems that "testport" or "bulk -t" options wasn't used? I don't see the stage-qa tests. Anyway, call it close enough. Moving to patch-ready.
Yes, I needed to update the shar file because of the failing QA test. I run the poudriere testport command. I think file you wanted to see is 2014-08-03_16h13m55s/logs/fish-2.0.20140802.log inside the tarbarll?
that explains it, I thought it was log.gz, not tar.gz so I just ungzipped it and looked at it. I'm still wondering why I don't see the stage-qa tests, maybe testport does those checks directly and bulk -t uses bsd.ports.mk to do it.
What about fish-2.0.20140802.log line 743?
ugh, now I under the comment about the gcc log. You archived the entire run. All was asking for was the fish-devel log (a mere 86k) Yeah, that's good. I was obviously looking at a different log as I was only expecting one. For the benefit of the committer that takes this PR, you might want to attach just the fish log and obsolete the compressed tarball.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #10) > ugh, now I under the comment about the gcc log. now I *understand* the comment ...
Created attachment 145307 [details] the logfile I will make it clean and attached only the fish logfile. Sorry, but this was my first port.
i never noticed what the port actually was. Why are you created a -devel version of fish instead of updating the stable version? What is the -devel version? (alpha, beta, etc). What FreeBSD users are going to use it over stable? For full disclosure, I am anti-devel ports in general. In some cases there is a clear need but in most I don't see it and you didn't explain "why" when you opened the PR, only "what".
I'm taking this - I'm not comfortable with it listed as patch-ready without knowing why fish-devel is needed beside fish. So I'll hold it while waiting for for that answer.
Hi Sascha, I've waited 2 weeks for a response. Are you around?
Hi John, Now I'm here to answer your questions: The devel version is the cutting edge version from github (pointing to a SHA). I created this version because the last release of the fish shell was very long ago (nearly one year) and they implemented a lots of features which we can't access with the current release (for example vi key bindings). Best regards, Sascha
You are not the same person that maintains shells/fish, correct? I really want to avoid two versions, ideally this could replace shells/fish. But I need to know if/when a release is planned (e.g. no point if new fish is released in 1 month) and then I have no idea about the stability/quality of a github snapshot. Have you coordinated with the fish maintainer at all? There is a school of though that says -devel versions have to be maintained by the same person that maintains the stable version. Right now this is not a rule, but some people want it to be. You can imaging 2 versions that are not coordinated are a burden for us.
Okay then I try to find out when a new release will come up.
Here is the conversation on the fish mailing list: On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, Sascha Grunert wrote: > When is an upcoming release planned? The current version is a little bit > outdated in comparison the Github progress. I'm still trying to get 2.1.1 out the door (I'm on vacation at present and the intersection of internet connectivity and free time is very small). I keep making promises I can't keep about "this weekend", but maybe this weekend... I've pushed all the patches to Integration_2.1.1, so it's ready for sign-off, but haven't written release notes or prepared the new packages yet - it will require a fishd restart so there is a bit more than usual involved. After that I am hoping to look at 2.2.0. There are a few rough edges that will need polishing first, but there are certainly lots of new features that it would be good to get into people's hands. Cheers David Adam fish committer
ok, so my interpretation of this is that we forgo this -devel port but use the work you did as a PR against the stable version. Right? Presumably there's only a minimal change for this proposal to handle the next release so most of the work to update the port is already done and only the maintainer of the stable port needs to sign off on it.
Alright then we should do it this way.
Okay, the plan is that sascha will submit a PR against the current shells/fish when the next release comes. Feel free to add me to the CC and I will take care of that PR after the current maintainer concurs with it.