From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May 12 18:56:51 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C28372;
 Mon, 12 May 2014 18:56:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC1F1242B;
 Mon, 12 May 2014 18:56:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.20] (unknown [130.255.19.191])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C333435C7;
 Mon, 12 May 2014 13:56:33 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <53711950.6040506@marino.st>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:56:16 +0200
From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melvyn Sopacua <melvyn@magemana.nl>, marino@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ACTION REQUIRED - Unstaged Ports being DEPRECATED on June 31st.
References: <536E46E0.7030906@FreeBSD.org> <53707FF6.3010300@bsdforen.de>
 <5370843F.8070104@marino.st>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405122042210.49377@fire.magemana.nl>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405122042210.49377@fire.magemana.nl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de>,
 portmgr-feedback@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:56:51 -0000

On 5/12/2014 20:49, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 May 2014, John Marino wrote:
> 
>> I commit PR patches that are 6 to 18 months old fairly frequently.
>> There is obviously a huge backlog but many PRs are processed daily.  The
>> PRs that aren't getting processed quickly are "[NEW PORT]" PRs (and
>> apparently anything mentioning fuse-fs for some reason).  A staging PR
>> is going to jump the line; it has a higher priority.
>>
>> Why would you even entertain the idea that a staging PR will fall
>> between the cracks?
> 
> Perhaps the better question is: what are the factors that will make
> committers shy away from a PR, even if it's summary contains stage? [1]
> Maybe we (maintainers) can do better?
> 
> [1]

Heh, 54 out of 2000+ PRs isn't too bad. :)

I doubt most cases are people intentionally passing over an ugly PR.  I
am sure it happens but staging is generally straightforward so the PR
itself isn't going to scare someone off.

John