Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:39:52 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? Message-ID: <4DB89B38.4000404@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20110427221813.GB32138@owl.midgard.homeip.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> <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20110427101257.414aaf8b@seibercom.net> <4DB8664D.70001@marino.st> <20110427221813.GB32138@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/28/2011 12:18 AM, Erik Trulsson wrote: > And if the committers can't choose what they are going to work on, you > are likely going find yourself with a lot fewer committers fairly soon. > As you notice, I never said they are limited what they work on. The order of the work is the focus. > And who is going to do all that extra work? You volunteering? If finding a volunteer is the only thing holding a reform back, then we have nothing to worry about. > > Details indeed, and the devil is in the details as the saying goes. > First of all there is no entity that knows about the timeline, > availability, etc. of the various committers. The only way to get that > information would be if committers were to report it at regular > intervals which they don't have any reason to do. I thought it was clear that I was saying that wouldn't work. > There is also the question of what to do if a committer doesn't like > all the proposed extra rules and bureacracy and simply ignores a PR he > has been assigned. There isn't really any way force a given committer > to work on something he doesn't want to work on. The only sanction > available is to remove the commit bit at which point you have one > committer less, and that work still isn't done. I was working the assumption that he agrees to the port up front or voluntarily picks up the next task. However, if someone has a repeated history of refusals or only wants to do a very narrow set of tasks, then maybe commit bit removal isn't that dramatic. > Worth it for who? Hardly to the guy who is going to do the extra work. > As for "fair" you haven't convinced me why it should be a requirement. I don't consider it extra work. I consider it doing the job correctly. And if I need to convince you that "fair" is correct, then basically I just wasted 5 minutes answering this post. Jerry pretty much outlined why it's correct to process these things in order, or at some semblance of order. Look, your mind is made up. You like the status quo. Everything is fine and no effort should be made to improve. I'm not interested in a long, drawn out discussion. I just wanted to give my opinion which I did, so I'm done. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DB89B38.4000404>