Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:11:12 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [DRAFT] ports contributor's guide Message-ID: <3FD25400.70403@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <D4AA8617-2833-11D8-8386-003065A20588@mac.com> References: <20031205025342.04faf48b.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> <3FD013E7.7080302@lonesome.com> <D4AA8617-2833-11D8-8386-003065A20588@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> GNATS would be more useful if it did this-- mailing the maintainer of > a port-- automatically if that person was not CC'ed on the PR > submission email. > > [ In other words, is it convenient to automate this "ability"? :-) ] IIRC someone was saying that the next version of GNATS (already available) has this ability? If not, my code could be made to do it with a little work (I do not currently scan the email headers, and GNATS has no interface to let you query them). And I've lost track of what the status of upgrading GNATS is as well. Of course if I ask one or two more times I may get stuck with the task ... > "Second opinion -- duplicates ports/misc/foo1 ... 4" > > ...or some such, indicating that the reviewer wants a second opinion > from someone else as to whether the port should be committed (and what > the issue is), leaving the PR open and the port uncommitted? Of course. That's why we have humans as committers :-) > I'm not convinced that putting a comprehensive list of reasons why a > committer should reject a new port in the Porter's Handbook is the > best way of encouraging people to contribute to the ports system. On > the other hand, I don't see any harm in the PH containing a suggestion > that being willing to maintain a port one submits is appreciated, will > contribute to rapid committal, etc. Well, I can live with this. OTOH claiming it will lead to more rapid commital might not actually be supported by the facts :-) but the part about it being appreciated should certainly go in. > Would it be useful to feed new port submissions to build machine for > testing to see whether they are broken before the port submission is > reviewed by a human? Hmph, misformatted PR's would still require > human intervention, so this probably wouldn't be that useful. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see if e.g. my code could be adapted to do that, but it would require some generalization of the bento scripts to be really useful. I have a number of such generalizations in the queue already :-) and bigger dragons to slay first, but think it would be a Neat Hack. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FD25400.70403>