From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 31 10:54:15 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6208D16A41F for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:54:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from hood.oook.cz (hood.oook.cz [212.27.205.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBC643D46 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:54:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ikaros.oook.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hood.oook.cz (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6VAsCje054957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:54:13 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from pav@localhost) by ikaros.oook.cz (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j6VAsB7G054956; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:54:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: ikaros.oook.cz: pav set sender to pav@FreeBSD.org using -f From: Pav Lucistnik To: Babak Farrokhi In-Reply-To: <9f7e126b050730124130c9bf87@mail.gmail.com> References: <66A226C3557B48ED535E3FED@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <20050728154248.GA943@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20050728164111.GA66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728170401.GA9534@soaustin.net> <20050728172249.GD66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728175142.GA11503@soaustin.net> <20050728225650.GE66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050729020225.GA28471@soaustin.net> <20050729102158.GA73490@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050729203324.GA19476@soaustin.net> <9f7e126b050730124130c9bf87@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-4gXUlgmPQR0fx8uw9sBG" Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:54:11 +0200 Message-Id: <1122807251.24300.22.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Mark Linimon Subject: Re: New port with maintainer ports@FreeBSD.org [was: Question about maintainers] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pav@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:54:15 -0000 --=-4gXUlgmPQR0fx8uw9sBG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Babak Farrokhi p=ED=B9e v ne 31. 07. 2005 v 00:11 +0430: > On 7/30/05, Mark Linimon wrote: > > > > If the maintainer is inactive, there isn't one. But we want to encoura= ge > > more people to be active maintainers. > >=20 >=20 > Good point. How do you encourage people to be active maintainers/contribu= tors? >=20 > Let me give you an example: I am the maintainer for www/eventum. The > current version in ports tree was 1.5.4 so I submitted the patch for > 1.5.5 (ports/84297) and now version 1.6.0 is out but the patch is not > submitted despite I was the maintainer myself. Submitted on Friday, complained about it on Saturday? We just don't have a _manpower_ to process all incoming PRs in 24 hours after arrival timeframe. Your simple update of eventum took me 20 minutes to fix, test and commit. I have it pretty extensively automated. New ports usually takes longer, depending on how much committer have to fix. Trust me, some submissions are really useless. Should we just kill those? I believe not. Now take a look at http://www.oook.cz/bsd/prstats/busters-ports.html those are numbers of closed PRs in past 3 months. That gives me 8 PRs/day. In practice I'm spending some four hours a day on it. I got a paid fulltime job I have to do, and I also got some non-FreeBSD pasttime activities, commonly called "a life". The point here is to view the situation from the standpoint of committers. No one here can be doing this full-time. And people are doing this for fun, don't forget. Now a lot of committers spend a lot of time maintaining their own ports, which are often complex and heavinly used. What we could really use be some dedicated people with a lot of free time and a good skill in ports. Those people are hard to find. > Another example: I submitted patch to update editors/vim to patchlevel > 79, now this version is vulnerable to arbitrary command execution > according to CAN-2005-2368. So I submitted the patchlevel 85 > (ports/84145) and also notified security-team@. But the port is still > awaiting approval. Well yes, it was three days old when you urged this at secteam. They decided to wait on maintainer instead of rushing it in, as the vulnerability is not that severe. > There is really something wrong with the port management process. > People's work is not being respected. So how do I get encouraged to > submit my patches? Now you cut yourself with double-edged sword. You want us to respect your submission by not respecting O'Brien's maintainership? --=20 Pav Lucistnik And now something completely different. --=-4gXUlgmPQR0fx8uw9sBG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBC7K3TntdYP8FOsoIRAlu8AKCYgPe1kdvxYDbASRbeeQ4bHjMBUgCgkU5m DXa66FdpBLkITcUydWM709E= =pU33 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-4gXUlgmPQR0fx8uw9sBG--