Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? Message-ID: <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <BANLkTinoGufNYZmkFgQmwGR4RjBXWXcDTA@mail.gmail.com> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> <19896.4396.161941.282904@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:32:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:50:52 -0400 > > However, I do find troubling you statement regarding a large update to > an older port or even a new port submission for that matter. I see no > logical reason for a committer to bypass an item simple based on its > size or the amount of work involved in getting it committed. After all, > consider that the original submitter invested a large amount of his/her > time in that same item. Very simple. A particular committer during one particular period of time maybe only 45 minutes of free time to spend on handling PRs. If the committer estimates that one large submitted PR would take at least two hours to review, test, and commit, while another, smaller, PR would only take 30 minutes to handle. Then the committer in question would have two choices: Don't handle either submission, or handling the smaller submission, while skipping the large one and hoping that some other committer with more free time will pick up that one. I see no reason to prefer the first of these choices. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110427134836.GA30085>