Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:05:30 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>, Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports Message-ID: <200311102005.30163.linimon@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com> References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> <53EC784E-13C5-11D8-AD24-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I always wondered why we don't have a ports-FRESH and ports-TESTED, > like we have -CURRENT and -STABLE. Because of the duplication of the amount of resources needed to support it. Now we have to think about (stable vs current) * (fresh vs tested), which is basically 4 environments, each adding an incremental effort of QA. I think it would take up more volunteer time than it would free up, myself. > - the wish for a faster moving ports tree This can be cured by getting more people involved as maintainers and committers. There is by no means a shortage of orphaned ports. Everyone should adopt one today! :-) (Hint to readers: I doubt very many people have become ports committers without being maintainers first) > - and the wish for more QA in the PR database, i.e. documented procedures > how and in which timeframe a PR is handled. And what should happen when it isn't? Remember, you're herding cats (volunteers), here. Who will volunteer to be the authority in case of disputes? (Not me, sorry, I'm already booked solid...) mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311102005.30163.linimon>