From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 12:51:22 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 1F572106566B for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:51:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp03.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.103]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28388FC0C for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:51:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr17.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.37]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 08:51:22 -0400 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr17.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.2.3-GA) with ESMTP id AVO22950; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:51:20 -0400 Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=209.6.91.204; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-sender="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.6.91.204; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-sender="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=209.6.91.204; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="roberthuff@rcn.com"; x-sender="postmaster@jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received: from unknown (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.91.204]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 08:51:14 -0400 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19896.4396.161941.282904@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:50:52 -0400 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" XEmacs Lucid X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mr17.lnh.mail.rcn.net) 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 12:51:22 -0000 Jerry writes: > > Ha, i've submitted mine about two months ago and still no luck. > > Personally, I believe that the current system, if not partially > broken, is far from ideal. I would prefer to see a system where > each submitted PR is assigned a specific number (I believe it is > actually) and then assigned in numeric order to the next > available committer. Not all committers are created equal. Asking Joe-the-fonts- guru to work on Mary's network monitoring application is probably not productive. Keeping a centralized list of who/what pairs - more importantly, keeping it useful - is another job on someone's desk. Are you that someone? > I am sure that the old, "But they are all volunteers", or some > such tirade will erupt. Not a tirade, but ... guilty. > It must be remembered that those who submit items for approval > are also volunteers. They deserve at least as much respect as > those who are actively working on those submitted items. Am I correct you are asking for a (far) higher level of dedication from the committers than from those who submit changes? Consider the port that goes untouched (in spite of substantial upstream changes) for months or even years; someone picks up the torch, and the poor committer gets N-thousend lines of new features, security patches, and dependency changes dumped on them to be checked in ... how long was that? Do I think there are flaws in the current system? Sure. But as long as we're faced with this particular choice of evils - slow updating versus lowered quality - I vote "first, do no harm". Respectfully, Robert Huff