Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule

On 8/21/2012 1:08 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
>> On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>>> 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in
>>>>> current to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE
>>>> 
>>>> I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make
>>>> pkg optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As
>>>> stated before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if
>>>> there is robust support for them in the ports tree.
>>>> 
>>>> I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose 
>>>> sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are
>>>> to the project.
>>>> 
>>> That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about.
>> 
>> I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what
>> you're suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be
>> discussed.
> 
> If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can
> you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked
> about?

Those address different parts of the problem. Making pkg mandatory in 10
is different from where the old pkg_* tools end up. The command line
tools are just the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot of interactions
behind the scenes.

> Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other
> replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has
> proposed.  If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old
> tools. 

I don't think we have ever done a complete replacement of major
infrastructure in one release. The traditional model has been to
deprecate in one release, remove in the next.

And in this case, it doesn't matter how awesome the new tools are, they
are a MAJOR paradigm shift for how users interact with ports, and we are
going to have a lot of users who take years to transition their
installed base. No matter how much we may want to move fast on this, it
just isn't going to be possible.

> If the new tools are good, but don't cover the older users,
> we develop along size. 

Yes, this is precisely what I'm saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

-- 

    I am only one, but I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do
    something.  And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
    I can do.
			-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)