Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:59:29 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: linimon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? Message-ID: <20110428075929.GA31875@lonesome.com> 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
Let's play "let's pretend". Let's pretend I'n on the ports management team (true). Let's pretend I have enough influence to talk the rest of the ports management team into agreeing with me (very debatable, based on past performance.) Then, let's pretend that portmgr promotes a new policy, "all PRs must be handled in a FIFO manner." So ... what will the committers say? "Hey, no one asked me what I think, I didn't sign up for this, I think I'll find something else better to do. Wonder what's on TV?" And what should the portmgrs do? Hold our breaths until we turn blue? Well. As pointed out above, portmgr can either: suspend someone's commit bit, or not. In general, we only suspend for a year of inactivity. (For maintainers, the timeout on PRs is 2 weeks; we can reset after 3 months of inactivity). Anything more aggressive than that, will simply discourage existing, and potential, volunteers: both maintainers, and commiters. IMVVHO. (And yes, behind the scenes portmgr does a lot of work with twisting arms nd asking "are you sure you want to keep maintainership of port foo, since we have someone that seems willing to work on it?" But that's not the same as adding a new requirement for committers, ex post facto.) mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110428075929.GA31875>