From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 8 12:17:59 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9491816A4CE for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:17:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6A943D13 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:17:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from lonesome.com (cs242719-195.austin.rr.com [24.27.19.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8EC146F6; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:17:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3FD4DC14.90205@lonesome.com> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:16:20 -0600 From: Mark Linimon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030713 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Swiger References: <20031205025342.04faf48b.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> <3FD013E7.7080302@lonesome.com> <3FD25400.70403@lonesome.com> <8E1DAD82-29AE-11D8-BC14-003065ABFD92@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <8E1DAD82-29AE-11D8-BC14-003065ABFD92@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [DRAFT] ports contributor's guide X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:17:59 -0000 > Are you suggesting a procedure by which a committer who has some doubts > about a port should handle the situation? I think the suggestion should be there that such a dialog can and should exist, that's all, whether between the maintainer/submitter or on freebsd-ports. > As discussed below, I don't think adding the "make sure your port is > useful" test to the PH would be helpful as written, but perhaps "2.6 > Submitting the port" could be extended with more details about the > actions taken by a committer when reviewing a port submission (ie, > testing it with portlint et al, checking to see whether the port is > filed in the right category, seeing whether the port submission > duplicates existing ports, etc). See PRs docs/53422, 53424, and 53425 for some ideas I have along those lines. > I think guidelines like these would indicate that there is a review > process AND also help explain why it takes a while for submissions to > be processed, without needlessly emphasizing to a new porter that > one's port submission might fail such a review. An excellent point. > OK. Maybe: "In the event that the committer reviewing the port > submission encounters a problem, being willing to maintain the port > you have submitted will help to resolve such problems more rapidly"...? No, not really :-) I think it should be stated more in terms that you are doing the project an appreciated favor if you agree to be the maintainer. From what I can tell committers commit whatever amuses them, I don't think whether there is a maintainer line or not has any effect on whether they are amused or not :-) mcl