Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:59:16 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.ORG>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, ports-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/cad/admesh Makefile Message-ID: <20110814235916.GF38385@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <4E47EF20.8000409@FreeBSD.org> References: <CADLo839VotWbi209%2BeR3LAuQ4HqC-LSGY4avcUFXHat=HjsrKg@mail.gmail.com> <20110812093328.GE85247@hades.panopticon> <b0535f6d53bb546b54d85797ec66cf0b@etoilebsd.net> <20110812101133.GF85247@hades.panopticon> <4E4584EA.7090306@FreeBSD.org> <20110813133717.GA38385@hades.panopticon> <4E469837.1030903@FreeBSD.org> <20110813172040.GC38385@hades.panopticon> <20110814030033.GA80255@FreeBSD.org> <4E47EF20.8000409@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matthias Andree (mandree@FreeBSD.org) wrote: > Assuming that were true, how else do we make sure not to let rotten code > linger in the ports tree? There's no way, not even with "maintained" ports. "Rotten code" doesn't build or doesn't work, is easily distinguished and should obviously be marked broken, while we actually are talking about (if you like) "rotting code", which only difference from normal code is a higher probability of becoming rotten. I don't think we mark ports as whatever based on just probability, and I insist on leaving it alone. Returning to ports@, it really is a fine maintainer entity, given general inferiority of other maintainer entities. There are no multiple maintainers, there is no automatic assignment of ports, there is no distinguishing between people who are willing to just solve problems and people who are willing to keep the port up to date (latter requires more effort), there are too little groups, and if a port is assigned to a group, there's still no designated maintaner, so it's less likely someone from a group will update a port, making a group not much different from ports@. Casual workflow I've witnessed many times: maintainer doesn't use the port (as extensively) any more -> he drops maintainership (for other to pick up, but no one does because that's not really needed to take care of a port). He still can and is willing to fix problems, but he doesn't really care about updates. Other person submits the update, but doesn't take the maintainership. The result is a ports@ port having at least two maintainers by fact, but none listed as such, both without means to monitor own ports (portscout, portsmon), etc. Port with a maintainer officially, who has given up by fact, however, may sit in a tree for years without update until it breaks. Not sure that it counts as a proof, but by portscout, 12.81% of maintained ports need an update, but only 6.64% unmaintained ones do: for x in '' '-v'; do wget http://portscout.cc -qO- | grep $x 'ports@freebsd.org' | grep '^<tr><td>' | sed -e 's,<[^<>]*>, ,g' | awk '{total+=$2; new+=$3}END{printf("Total: %d, new: %d (%.2f%%)\n", total, new, new/total*100);}' done -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110814235916.GF38385>