Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:56:16 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Melvyn Sopacua <melvyn@magemana.nl>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org>, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de>, portmgr-feedback@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ACTION REQUIRED - Unstaged Ports being DEPRECATED on June 31st. Message-ID: <53711950.6040506@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405122042210.49377@fire.magemana.nl> References: <536E46E0.7030906@FreeBSD.org> <53707FF6.3010300@bsdforen.de> <5370843F.8070104@marino.st> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405122042210.49377@fire.magemana.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53711950.6040506>