From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 17:48:40 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B53DE773; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com (mail-we0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21FB9139A; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p61so3777805wes.6 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:48:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rXVNZI+MI1jlxuj79RR3nlT29ydGClsB2jTZlXYes+4=; b=MopTcpu9ZcP07HZBxzt7vcIvNFHcCHHc43vhkMlADYPQCuahMb0zDmDXharjUc29RF c5qOvToPqh8ZzNxnIg2wco3cTMKvNCQdPydXZzosj5iCafRnhnFtpoO+j17kG803RL6N GSS9xCnYn7ZvbdS72cJtwAVPKW7hkENvtp/ocOAMTSLYmS9Ybjtp1Bv4RIBtGeoXxESF tMY5Nb05QP/jXvkR+6nEIi8oUtFw4g3uq2q2xYIAc6g063e5pRHPb/aRJ/MCEGlcpTLK jdG9Do9NdLcmotYMoqhj8mSQCCcWW7NuW4J1O9bFRsC/1Q4oL7CRsHSwSwMoqphN5hCf LW8w== X-Received: by 10.194.108.198 with SMTP id hm6mr1820511wjb.33.1390672118490; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:48:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ithaqua.etoilebsd.net (ithaqua.etoilebsd.net. [37.59.37.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 5sm11302063wjw.17.2014.01.25.09.48.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:48:37 -0800 (PST) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:48:35 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? Message-ID: <20140125174835.GA67191@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <52E2FA36.5080106@marino.st> <52E303CB.6020304@marino.st> <52E30990.2060903@marino.st> <52E33AA7.3080205@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gKMricLos+KVdGMg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52E33AA7.3080205@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:48:40 -0000 --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:16:39PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >=20 > On 1/24/14, 4:47 PM, John Marino wrote: > > On 1/25/2014 01:36, Big Lebowski wrote: > >> I was hoping to get some discussion revealing how the work is organized > >> around ports PR, perhaps some ideas on improving them and I hoped that > >> people who can make decisions and changes would notice it and consider > >> them, since as they say, the squeeky wheel gets the grease, that's all= =2E At > >> no point I insisted on forcing anyone to anything, and I dont think th= at's > >> neither only nor a viable solution. > >> > >> It seems obvious that current process doesnt work very well, then I'd = aim > >> at reorganizing that process - it appears that there is no roles speci= fied, > >> so the responsibility is blurred, and when everyone is responsible for= one > >> thing, in practice no one is. Perhaps role assignment could be of any = help? > > I'm not trying to be a jerk, but surely I'm coming off that way. > > Again, nobody is obligated to accept any assignment. They have to > > volunteer to do it. The only person that The Big Lebowski can influence > > here is himself. > > > > Thus, are you volunteering for this role? It's not my call, but if you > > really want to do clean out and triage the all PRs on an ongoing basis, > > my guess is that would be very welcome and we'd figure out a way to set > > that up. It would definitely help, especially for those maintainer that > > "approve" patches but the PRs never get opened (or set to a better state > > than "open"). > > > > At some point we'll have a new PR system, that fact might be having an > > impact on current PRs as well... >=20 > To me it would speak of tooling as opposed to anything. >=20 > Does the ports system have a 1 or 2 click interface for merging PRs like= =20 > for instance github? >=20 > Could ports take PRs in the form of pull requests on github? >=20 > Wouldn't that just turn the number of updates into a few minor clicks? >=20 > (also wouldn't it make it easier for ports submitters)? >=20 > (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that makes= =20 > this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) That would imho be a total disaster, as less and less people will really ta= ke care of reviewing the actual patch (lots of commits are already directly fr= om Pr patches without applying some necessary diff for consistency, correctness, = Q/A and cosmetic.) btw we already have tons of tools available to just merge patches directly = =66rom gnats. regards, Bapt --gKMricLos+KVdGMg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlLj+PMACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ew6+ACfZmKpqI3564rxWd9n0X7hdFyD WqAAoIxA89hsLvzwre+4wMGAHvZ7bh7Y =YIsI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gKMricLos+KVdGMg--