Created attachment 147045 [details] ports-mgmt/prhistory [request maintainer] STAGE ports-mgmt/prhistory adds MAINTAINER, STAGEDIR Please find 2014-09-07.diff, attached, for details. See also ports-mgmt-prhistory-out, for requisite QA log, also attached. Thank you for all your time, and consideration. --Chris
Created attachment 147046 [details] ports-mgmt/prhistory - requisite QA for 2014-09-07.diff ports-mgmt/prhistory Please find requisite QA log, ports-mgmt-prhistory-out, attached, for 2014-09-07.diff, also attached. Thank you. --Chris
For what it's worth, the GNATS database is no longer in use or supported (in the FreeBSD Project). Would you still like to proceed?
Chris, what's the justification for saving this port? Kubilay is indicating it has no use, so what use do you think it has? Personally I'm a bit gun-shy due to the gnats4 disaster and since then I've suspected you don't actually use some of the ports you've been saving.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #3) > Chris, what's the justification for saving this port? Kubilay is indicating > it has no use, so what use do you think it has? > > > Personally I'm a bit gun-shy due to the gnats4 disaster and since then I've > suspected you don't actually use some of the ports you've been saving. 2 reasons. One; [as you've already cited] gnats4. I _do_ plan to make good use of it. This is already setup to make use of gnats4. Two; I'd like to make this Dual Purpose, soon. Meaning; that it can make use of FreeBSD's new pr(1) (bugzilla). I only need to further investigate the database && accessibility. Thanks John, and Kubilay. --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #4) > (In reply to John Marino from comment #3) > > Personally I'm a bit gun-shy due to the gnats4 disaster and since then I've > > suspected you don't actually use some of the ports you've been saving. > > 2 reasons. One; [as you've already cited] gnats4. I _do_ plan to > make good use of it. This is already setup to make use of gnats4. > Two; I'd like to make this Dual Purpose, soon. Meaning; that it > can make use of FreeBSD's new pr(1) (bugzilla). > I only need to further investigate the database && accessibility. Hold on. This is the description, "prhistory shows PR from the FreeBSD GNATS database corresponding to a port. Show a summary view of all PR related to a port and request an individual PR by number." That means this port is specific to the FreeBSD GNATS database which koobs already said isn't available anymore. I assumed you intended to use gnats4 generically (why? it's horrible) but this doesn't look like it even has a generic use. And if you intend to do a bugzilla version (I don't even know if that's feasible or desire), that should be a new port. As I said before, people pretty much despise GNATS. Saving this port is not going to be popular. Are you really going to set up a brand new GNATS database for personal use?
(In reply to John Marino from comment #5) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #4) > > (In reply to John Marino from comment #3) > > > Personally I'm a bit gun-shy due to the gnats4 disaster and since then I've > > > suspected you don't actually use some of the ports you've been saving. > > > > 2 reasons. One; [as you've already cited] gnats4. I _do_ plan to > > make good use of it. This is already setup to make use of gnats4. > > Two; I'd like to make this Dual Purpose, soon. Meaning; that it > > can make use of FreeBSD's new pr(1) (bugzilla). > > I only need to further investigate the database && accessibility. > > Hold on. This is the description, "prhistory shows PR from the FreeBSD > GNATS database corresponding to a port. Show a summary view of all PR > related to a port and request an individual PR by number." > > That means this port is specific to the FreeBSD GNATS database which koobs > already said isn't available anymore. I assumed you intended to use gnats4 > generically (why? it's horrible) but this doesn't look like it even has a > generic use. > > And if you intend to do a bugzilla version (I don't even know if that's > feasible or desire), that should be a new port. > > As I said before, people pretty much despise GNATS. Saving this port is not > going to be popular. > > Are you really going to set up a brand new GNATS database for personal use? Well, yes. Sure. I understand (some|many) may feel it's [shall we say] less-than-desirable. But I think it can be improved, and yes, I think the time to do it, is worth it. :) I don't know that bugzilla is necessarily the best-thing-since-sliced-bread, either. They both have their pluses, and minuses. Kinda' like the argument over SVN-v-CVS | FreeBSD-v-Linux -- depends upon who you're talking to. No? :) As to better being a "new port". I guess I don't have a real issue with that. It just seemed trivial to make it generic enough to work with [any] gnats4. So I thought it worth keeping it in the tree. With the intention of making it use _any_ gnats4 bug||database. In the _very_ near future. While also adding support for the [current] (bugzilla) pr(1), used now. In the end. I'll let you decide. My life won't come to an end, which ever choice you make. ;) I can re-introduce it, if need be. Thanks for all your time, John. --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #6) > Well, yes. Sure. I understand (some|many) may feel it's [shall we say] > less-than-desirable. But I think it can be improved, and yes, I think > the time to do it, is worth it. :) > I don't know that bugzilla is necessarily the best-thing-since-sliced-bread, > either. They both have their pluses, and minuses. Kinda' like the argument > over SVN-v-CVS | FreeBSD-v-Linux -- depends upon who you're talking to. > No? :) I actually don't think those are comparable. GNATS has a bunch of fundamental issues due to when it was designed. And some of those design issues can't be blamed on "back then everything was on one system and we all trusted each other". For example, the decision to let the submitter decide the criticality level of their own PR is asinine. Everything thinks their little problem is the near the end of the world and that everyone cares (ofc, the rest of us think it's trivial at best). I honestly don't think anybody (except maybe you) would start a new GNATS system. Not with the current design, and not with improvements added. You could literally be only consumer of gnats4 with a possible exception of somebody that wants to archive the FreeBSD database (not to use, but only for archival purposes). > As to better being a "new port". I guess I don't have a real issue with > that. It just seemed trivial to make it generic enough to work with [any] > gnats4. So I thought it worth keeping it in the tree. With the intention > of making it use _any_ gnats4 bug||database. In the _very_ near future. > While also adding support for the [current] (bugzilla) pr(1), used now. I don't see why somebody that wanted bugzilla wouldn't just open a browser. These PRs must be nearly unreadable in a straight text form. > In the end. I'll let you decide. My life won't come to an end, which ever > choice you make. ;) I can re-introduce it, if need be. I vote to let this port die. If you do succeed in modifying the source to make it generic and you find out that there's a demand for it (other than yourself) then we can bring it back pretty easily. I don't want to bring it back on a promise that it will be fixed later. Fix it first, that's my feeling.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #7) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #6) > > Well, yes. Sure. I understand (some|many) may feel it's [shall we say] > > less-than-desirable. But I think it can be improved, and yes, I think > > the time to do it, is worth it. :) > > I don't know that bugzilla is necessarily the best-thing-since-sliced-bread, > > either. They both have their pluses, and minuses. Kinda' like the argument > > over SVN-v-CVS | FreeBSD-v-Linux -- depends upon who you're talking to. > > No? :) > > I actually don't think those are comparable. > GNATS has a bunch of fundamental issues due to when it was designed. And > some of those design issues can't be blamed on "back then everything was on > one system and we all trusted each other". For example, the decision to let > the submitter decide the criticality level of their own PR is asinine. > Everything thinks their little problem is the near the end of the world and > that everyone cares (ofc, the rest of us think it's trivial at best). > > I honestly don't think anybody (except maybe you) would start a new GNATS > system. Not with the current design, and not with improvements added. You > could literally be only consumer of gnats4 with a possible exception of > somebody that wants to archive the FreeBSD database (not to use, but only > for archival purposes). > > > > As to better being a "new port". I guess I don't have a real issue with > > that. It just seemed trivial to make it generic enough to work with [any] > > gnats4. So I thought it worth keeping it in the tree. With the intention > > of making it use _any_ gnats4 bug||database. In the _very_ near future. > > While also adding support for the [current] (bugzilla) pr(1), used now. > > I don't see why somebody that wanted bugzilla wouldn't just open a browser. > These PRs must be nearly unreadable in a straight text form. > > > > In the end. I'll let you decide. My life won't come to an end, which ever > > choice you make. ;) I can re-introduce it, if need be. > > I vote to let this port die. > If you do succeed in modifying the source to make it generic and you find > out that there's a demand for it (other than yourself) then we can bring it > back pretty easily. I don't want to bring it back on a promise that it will > be fixed later. Fix it first, that's my feeling. Sure. OK. If I've learned anything, through all this. I've learned _not_ to argue with you. ;) Seriously. You bring up very good points. I have more work to do, on both gnats4, and prhistory. I see no [real] reason to _insist_ this be kept in the tree, _today_. When I can easily add it, when it's [actually] completed, _as_ intended. Thanks for all the time, and input, you've put into this, John. I _really_ appreciate it. :) --Chris
(In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #8) > Sure. OK. If I've learned anything, through all this. I've learned _not_ > to argue with you. ;) You're allowed to argue, you just have to be correct. That's the catch. :) > Seriously. You bring up very good points. I have more work to do, on > both gnats4, and prhistory. I see no [real] reason to _insist_ this be > kept in the tree, _today_. When I can easily add it, when it's [actually] > completed, _as_ intended. You've seen me resurrect ports that were dead for 4 years, it's not difficult to do. With SVN, nothing is truly dead. It would be helpful for everyone to learn if gnats4 continues to be used. Maybe somebody will send you an email if they are trying to set it up and that can be useful data. Okay, with that, I'm moving this to OBE (Withdrawn)
(In reply to John Marino from comment #9) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #8) > > Sure. OK. If I've learned anything, through all this. I've learned _not_ > > to argue with you. ;) > > > You're allowed to argue, you just have to be correct. That's the catch. :) Yes. But right in who's mind -- why _yours_, of course. ;) ;) > > > > Seriously. You bring up very good points. I have more work to do, on > > both gnats4, and prhistory. I see no [real] reason to _insist_ this be > > kept in the tree, _today_. When I can easily add it, when it's [actually] > > completed, _as_ intended. > > > You've seen me resurrect ports that were dead for 4 years, it's not > difficult to do. With SVN, nothing is truly dead. It would be helpful for > everyone to learn if gnats4 continues to be used. Maybe somebody will send > you an email if they are trying to set it up and that can be useful data. Really good point. I have high aspirations for gnats4. Mind you; there's a bunch of work ahead. But I see it even being possible to manage other things, with it. Such as using it for something as simple as a Bulletin Board (Forum). For example. > > Okay, with that, I'm moving this to OBE (Withdrawn) Understood, and thank you _very_ much, for all your input, John. --Chris