From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 25 23:41:55 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 18FBF929
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from shell0.rawbw.com (shell0.rawbw.com [198.144.192.45])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8FA12A5
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:54 +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 s0PNfrpm080135;
 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:41:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com)
Message-ID: <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:41:53 -0800
From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?
References: <CAHcXP+f6e-t--XbQPTH1goJp_CL7P=zTj5trZVWd4YZ_EsO9gw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGBxaX=t3e5SXoBDHnzAbx=SWbEFMJHNPQL13FnwNgKWM3gCiA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAHcXP+ew5qt5hc9Y+R_njPkfhUMsDDAqNk9aYSacV4PwBmqjfw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAGBxaXnXwo4JxnRdffZfdvfETfhgJNkFM-N23H1SOT0G3-oMwA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAE-m3X2dQTTsbrTJg2iPT3qkfq7h9U8oGbRZXGAXH+J2T4MFNw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAHcXP+dtHPHT+FD8RdcqhGANBPf1Gk4N4coEpZY-eAuQE3iZtg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAE-m3X2rWk-0k_yH1PK0iN_5YhvSh1UsV0VCrroJq==687X1ZQ@mail.gmail.com>	<52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com>
 <CAGBxaXnfb2yPZZCaf6mYzASzT13b68A8iPT6eUwUdU9W1ya_Qg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGBxaXnfb2yPZZCaf6mYzASzT13b68A8iPT6eUwUdU9W1ya_Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bernhard_Fr=F6hlich?= <decke@bluelife.at>,
 Big Lebowski <spankthespam@gmail.com>, ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:41:55 -0000

On 01/25/2014 14:44, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> The key seems to be that no one has time to do the stuff they really want
> to do (get new ports into the system)... to that end automating everything
> that can be automated is sure help free up comitter time so they can look
> at what is interesting

Yes. I just can't imagine any generic port tests that can't be automated 
and coded into the script once and for good.
Ideal system should be like github with the added automated testing 
between pull request submission and merge. It should either fail and 
notify the submitter, or succeed and notify the committers.

Today all committers do for ports is running some generic tests by hand, 
like 'lint' with various flags. Install/uninstall/etc. No wonder this 
isn't very a rewarding activity, and committers probably perceive it as 
a necessary evil. The way how it is, it causes a waste of their time.

Yuri