From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 19 22:04:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mandree.no-ip.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763D8106566B for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:04:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mandree@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D9423CE21 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:04:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <50088459.3010103@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:04:09 +0200 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <50017C97.3050200@filez.com> <20120714192119.GA61563@vniz.net> <5001CB97.6070205@filez.com> <50054F6E.9040002@filez.com> <50055293.3010002@FreeBSD.org> <20120717213902.GB21825@lonesome.com> <5005E2AE.3040806@marino.st> <20120717224302.GA26742@lonesome.com> <20120718063756.GE70259@e-new.0x20.net> In-Reply-To: <20120718063756.GE70259@e-new.0x20.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:04:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 18.07.2012 08:37, schrieb Lars Engels: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:43:02PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote: >>> Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized >>> quality contributor with history) just got committed as a passthrough? >> >> This has been explored on the mailing lists before, however, we don't >> technically have a way to do either of the following: >> >> - let people commit to "just some" ports > > Shouldn't this work with subversion? The problem isn't purely technical. The technical component is easily solved, but there are social and trust issues, and I'm not so sure if there is a middle layer. I think the underlying proposal might expedite the maintenance of a few individual ports in borderline cases, but this middle layer of contributors between submitters and committers is close enough to the committers so that I personally would see it as a needless additional abstraction that just complicates matters for little gain. And then there are issues that aren't bit-sized, but larger, hence they end up in abandoned or formally suspended PRs that contribute to the backlog. Expediting throughput of a few ports isn't going to help those at all, but they form the backlog... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlAIhFQACgkQvmGDOQUufZWmHwCfapbIdd0kpa6GZ7xnxV+f8gHj 9u4AnjEZV/yExbJILhnro3z8V0xnFPY0 =d29M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----