From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 26 18:54:36 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 01531DD7 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x235.google.com (mail-wg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8026D1106 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y10so4812621wgg.20 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:54:33 -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=3NZxSY4qmN9bU++AW9oyM7iKWCHcouF0M7ez1OnVKGQ=; b=0WVy3erE91BYm64DYfoNbdUNAox2f70w+bdKf8cb8PnfPIop562ARzUfKO19m26o7o OYFLnDYMMtGGkc+ZaxgvGr79b5Z3zcwdpnqgqpjpXRLG2tQDXx3CLyIytNgOjjl+ge0m mLXDB86EUq0FfmNNwN1OXe2cNwMYu/lR/DxyozA7/dQCDTedOY4TS4bZszpwaxQeRRYf 0i9G0pR3sGXzPgd/dsHEcmpuZoUEfiwqCso4y7dLd0+xi7ftUHPAr+9jXpKmqYO27Y6z OQEhpZQ+1WNFyZvB7QoISxCfVj9dygFbDHtwBZLOGLwoFlROGu5+6LAy7cht1ah4O8z6 kG3w== X-Received: by 10.194.22.129 with SMTP id d1mr17898625wjf.22.1390762473892; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ithaqua.etoilebsd.net (ithaqua.etoilebsd.net. [37.59.37.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cx3sm30850927wib.0.2014.01.26.10.54.31 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:54:31 -0800 (PST) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:54:29 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? Message-ID: <20140126185429.GB30300@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> <52E45137.5070703@rawbw.com> <52E46C6C.6060001@mu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52E46C6C.6060001@mu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Yuri , Bernhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=F6hlich?= , Aryeh Friedman , Big Lebowski , 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: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:54:36 -0000 --qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 06:01:16PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 4:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > > On 01/25/2014 15:48, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > >> Git hup (or*ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO > > > > But both Debian and Fedora do this with automated remote testing, and= =20 > > they don't seem to complain. > > How is our ports different in this respect? > > > I don't get this either. >=20 Because what they do is more complicated than that and they have way more p= eople dedicated to review, btw Fedora cannot be compared given they have way less packages than we have but even if you do compare, then you will discover th= at the automated tasks are about the same has what we have. Concerning debian, the human review is also the bottleneck as for us, they = have just way more people working on packages. So more people to review things. regards, Bapt --qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlLlWeUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ey/AQCggryCF0HLEYzp7SmyTw3AHEyT 9KcAmQFGydb3L9OyV+mPeFOt0+vVlqlR =gdWi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv--