From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 22:33:27 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 12B0E106564A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:33:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.153.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FDD8FC16 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:33:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-51-20.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.51.20]:26359 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.73) (envelope-from ) id 1QFDI9-0004pP-Em for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:33:07 +0200 Received: (qmail 19048 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2011 00:33:05 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2011 00:33:05 +0200 Received: (qmail 32332 invoked by uid 1001); 28 Apr 2011 00:33:05 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:33:05 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110427223305.GA32276@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> <19896.4396.161941.282904@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net> <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20110427101257.414aaf8b@seibercom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110427101257.414aaf8b@seibercom.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.51.20 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1QFDI9-0004pP-Em. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net 1QFDI9-0004pP-Em 229f8eff2288bd4f5b94bea85659132f 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 22:33:27 -0000 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:12:57AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 > Erik Trulsson articulated: > > > 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. > > If the committer cannot finish the project in their allotted time > frame they simply stop and pick up from that point in their next > session. Or they can take a look at that project, decide that they are not interested in doing that particular project, and say "Screw this, I have better things do with my free time" and go off and read a book instead. > I have literally hundreds of projects that I cannot complete > in one day; however, I don't simply shrug them off. If I did nothing > would ever get accomplished, or at best only the easiest assignments. Hundreds? Sounds a bit excessive if you were to ask me. If you have that many things to do then FIFO is a downright stupid way to approach them unless you know you have enough time to do *all* of them. (And it is rare that there is that much time available.) With that many things to do one needs to prioritize. First one should do the important stuff, and if there is any time left after having done that one might as well pick the fun projects, because there just isn't much point in doing boring, unimportant stuff. > > One of the basic fallacies in your analysis is that someone else will > pick up the slack. Unfortunately, our society has become over run by > those who are always ready to blame others or expect others to do our > job for us. Quite honestly, I find that pathetic. And yet you are so quick at blaming committers for not doing things the way you think they should be done. Pot. Kettle. Black. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se