Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 20:12:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Melvyn Sopacua <melvyn@magemana.nl> To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, Frederic Culot <culot@freebsd.org>, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porters Handbook update Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1407061919400.62147@fire.magemana.nl> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1vmk7jGw1miQsx1Zm09DFOY6LBJi2KnXHgO6==ty9HyZA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140706075925.GI39085@culot.org> <CAN6yY1vmk7jGw1miQsx1Zm09DFOY6LBJi2KnXHgO6==ty9HyZA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Frederic Culot <culot@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Beloved porters, >> >> following some discussions related to the rights and duties of ports >> maintainers it became obvious that our handbook was not specific enough >> on the matter. Hence an update was committed that aims at clarifying >> the notion of maintainership and all porters are invited to peruse the >> changes: >> >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintainer.html >> >> And of course, a big thanks to all of you who dedicate their time to >> maintain our ports! >> >> >> Frederic, with portmgr-secretary hat on >> > > "excluding major public holidays" to what segment of the public? Easy fix: exluding local (to the maintainer) bank holidays. However, in practice, it's not enforced that strict. Some periods people work 90 hours a week, some periods they have their weekends and some periods they leave the house when they have them. But, I'm rather surprised that maintainers now get their responsibilities spelled out, while there's no section on committers, and quite a shortage of them. From my own experience, there have been people coaching me and I thank them for it, but on average I have to chase down the PR's to get them committed. This takes time out of the maintaining part, especially if you work on ports that require dependencies to be updated or entered into the tree before they can be updated or entered. And let me stress this, this by no means an attack on individual committers or committers as a group. It is an observation of resources in order to discuss possible solutions. By this post [1], "Getting a commit bit does not obligate you to process PRs". Isn't it time to: - relax (and spell out) requirements for ports-comitters and / or: - add processing PR's to the responsibilities of ports-comitters I've skimmed what I considered relevant sections of the committers-guide and did not find much. If I missed it, feel free to point me to the section. [1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2014-January/089221.html -- Melvyn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1407061919400.62147>