From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 28 18:52:39 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.emma.line.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490741065675 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:52:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mandree@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:::1]) by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9144B25ADB1 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:58:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DB97289.3080208@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:58:33 +0200 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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> <4DB8664D.70001@marino.st> <20110427221813.GB32138@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <4DB89B38.4000404@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <4DB89B38.4000404@marino.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:52:39 -0000 Am 28.04.2011 00:39, schrieb John Marino: > 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. It will leave one frustrated committer who will likely turn his back to the project and leave altogether, and, that point was made before, leave his work undone -- and that means BOTH the work he didn't pick that you wanted to punish for, and the work he did do. And redistributing the latter is painful for all others. Given that committers aren't likely to inflict pain to themselves, such a system isn't going to be established. Let's for the sake of the argument assume that committers are neither deliberately brushing maintainers off, nor ignoring/neglecting them, nor bored. If you work with volunteers, you need incentive, not repression or threat. Robert suggested a who's who of committers, which might be helpful for some auto-assignment after a week or two. I for one am not against such auto-assignments, and I believe that there's some overhead in the status quo that causes this to NOT happen. Teaming up maintainers for a set of ports means setting up aliases or lists. Teaming up committers for a set of ports either happens through projects such as KDE or GNOME, or not at all. I for one am also open for teaming up and getting some ports in my areas of expertise auto-assigned to me, but I am not actively looking for them. Let's think a bit more about Robert's who's who list, what it could be used for (technical auto-assignment after timeouts, or a mere contacts list for maintainers were mentioned), and about incentive for committers. The cheapest incentive would be to make some process easier. Now, what to we want to make easier? For committers? For maintainers? How can we keep maintainers in a good mood and motivated even if their submissions linger for longer than they feel fair?