Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:08:12 -0500 From: Andrew Berg <robotsondrugs@gmail.com> To: Jim Ohlstein <jim@ohlste.in>, Daniel Corbe <corbe@corbe.net> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-stable stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: reason 23 why we've moved to linux Message-ID: <532F3F2C.7020007@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <532F3499.4040407@ohlste.in> References: <m2iorb1ms8.wl%randy@psg.com> <532EDDD0.80700@ohlste.in> <20140323153843.GA16935@lonesome.com> <532F1C48.7080003@ohlste.in> <ygflhw0zrjd.fsf@corbe.net> <532F3499.4040407@ohlste.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014.03.23 14:23, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > Wow, something got the hair on your neck up. This is my point exactly. > In an ER they would take the most serious first (and sometimes gunshots > are through and through and not all that critical), and then the > non-serious *in order*, or at least reasonably so, not by a willy nilly > "I'll take this" system. That way the pretty girl with strep throat > who's been waiting only 30 minutes doesn't get seen ahead of the smelly > homeless old guy with leg ulcers who's been waiting six hours. > > Ports PR's are mostly non-urgent. Triage out the urgent and get them > done. The rest should be handled in order, not by an "I'll take this" > system. I disagree. Yes, the urgent ones need to get priority, but trying to dictate which issues *volunteers* should work on doesn't work. It's also not as simple as just urgent and non-urgent. An inexperienced contributor is going to want to do an easy update to a port they like, and if you tell that person to do some difficult fix to a port they don't care about just because it's older, you'll scare them away and their contributions will be zero. Ports are not people and prioritizing by popularity (and difficulty) is not a bad thing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?532F3F2C.7020007>