From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 22:28:17 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDAF666E for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:28:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shell0.rawbw.com (shell0.rawbw.com [198.144.192.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C7E1DA8 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:28:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eagle.yuri.org (stunnel@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by shell0.rawbw.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0PMSGK5070337; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:28:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com) Message-ID: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:28:16 -0800 From: Yuri User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bernhard_Fr=F6hlich?= , Big Lebowski Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Aryeh Friedman , ports 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 22:28:18 -0000 On 01/25/2014 05:43, Bernhard Fröhlich wrote: > With the scripts it should be possible to fetch the patch of a PR, apply > and commit it to your redports repository and do additional changes until > you are okay with it. What is still missing is a script that helps > committing the changes to the FreeBSD tree but it's really not that > complicated to write that. This sounds like a very manual process again. Today it is already manual. This only automates the patching step. > be more specific and name the problem, if you mentioned it? > > The raised concerns were that automatic build testing might result in less > testing on committer side. I agree that this might happen and automatic > build testing is only one part of what committers need to do. A huge > backlog and no response for months is definitely nothing we want. But what exactly do committers test that can't be automated? Automatic system could install the port with dependencies into the blank installation, check syntax correctness, run 'lint' on it, verify that it installs/uninstalls cleanly and doesn't leave residue, etc etc. What is beyond that? I am trying to understand, what would the general ports expert without the intimate knowledge of this particular package catch, that automated system won't be able to catch? Yuri