From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 13:48:55 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70610106566B for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:48:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.153.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28008FC1A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-51-20.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.51.20]:30766 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.73) (envelope-from ) id 1QF56e-0000FX-HX for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:45 +0200 Received: (qmail 16341 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 Received: (qmail 30121 invoked by uid 1001); 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> <19896.4396.161941.282904@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.51.20 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1QF56e-0000FX-HX. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp05.sth.basefarm.net 1QF56e-0000FX-HX cd903afe1e314733bad1435407676a6c Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:48:55 -0000 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:32:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:50:52 -0400 > > However, I do find troubling you statement regarding a large update to > an older port or even a new port submission for that matter. I see no > logical reason for a committer to bypass an item simple based on its > size or the amount of work involved in getting it committed. After all, > consider that the original submitter invested a large amount of his/her > time in that same item. Very simple. A particular committer during one particular period of time maybe only 45 minutes of free time to spend on handling PRs. If the committer estimates that one large submitted PR would take at least two hours to review, test, and commit, while another, smaller, PR would only take 30 minutes to handle. Then the committer in question would have two choices: Don't handle either submission, or handling the smaller submission, while skipping the large one and hoping that some other committer with more free time will pick up that one. I see no reason to prefer the first of these choices. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se