Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:00:22 +0100 From: Shaun Amott <shaun@FreeBSD.org> To: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Solutions for the PR load problem Message-ID: <20100709200016.GA23404@charon.picobyte.net> In-Reply-To: <4C375E47.9020307@bsdforen.de> References: <4C374B3E.90704@bsdforen.de> <20100709172503.GA22795@charon.picobyte.net> <4C375E47.9020307@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:37:11PM +0200, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > > On 09/07/2010 19:25, Shaun Amott wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > >> > >> To solve this problem with the current organization, my guess is > >> that between 15 and 30 new active committers are required. > >> Because I don't think this is easily achieved I want to suggest > >> a different approach. And I expect many others also have their > >> own ideas how this can be solved. > >> > >> Proposal: > >> My idea is that experienced Maintainers get commit permission > >> for their own ports. I don't even think such a thing needs to > >> be enforced technically, after all who'd want to risk his > >> experienced maintainer bit, however this is possible (and people > >> would probably sleep better). > >> (apologies for my dodgy quoting...) > > > > The whole VCS debate has been had over and over; I think that for the > > time being it is more constructive to look at changes we can make to our > > existing processes. Anything that requires switching from CVS isn't > > going to happen any time soon. > > You can also do this with CVS. Ok - but how do we define "experienced"? Someone who has submitted 100 PORTVERSION++ PRs? I'm not convinced we have enough contributors who are experienced enough to be given commit rights, but not contributing enough to be offered full access. Cases where other ports need touching (e.g., library bumps), or an update depends on another port/PR elsewhere could prove to be problematic. > > One thing that is sorely missed -- by me, at least -- is the ports > > tinderbox mini-cluster we had previously (graciously provided by simon > > and erwin). The major bottleneck in the review/commit process is the > > testing part (again, I speak for myself). A set of tinderbox machines > > representing the tier-1 architectures, to which we could grant > > contributors access, would reduce the burden on committers (if a > > patch/PR arrives with an accompanying log file). > > What needs to be done? (I.e. money, work hours) Machine(s), rack-space, someone to maintain said machines to a decent standard. Possibly money could solve these issues. :-) I'm not sure how many non-committers were aware of / given access to tb3 and tb4 when they were around, but if tinderbox were used as a matter of course, it would, I believe go some way to speeding things up. -- Shaun Amott // PGP: 0x6B387A9A "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100709200016.GA23404>