From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 06:23:39 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F101106564A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:23:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271DF8FC15 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.11] (atoulouse-256-1-41-46.w90-38.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.38.232.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14165435D7 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:05:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:05:43 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:23:39 -0000 Since we're already in the mood to discuss FreeBSD ports issues, maybe somebody can clear something up for me. Several days ago, I submitted a patch for a port I maintain: ports/156541 "[MAINTAINER] Upgrade lang/gnat-aux to release version and add C++" Nobody has touched it, but many other PRs after that submission have been assigned, etc. So I have two questions: 1) What's involved with processing a patch from a maintainer? Is it simply a committer commits it on behalf of the maintainer (iow very easy?). Or is it the other end of the spectrum where it has to go through Tinderbox? I would assume the maintainer is trusted and the patch is applied without testing. 2) I have very well aware that people dedicate their own time, etc, and I think that explains why the PRs are getting cherry picked. But seriously, shouldn't there be a policy to process these PRs in order? I'm sure it's been like this for years, but it doesn't seem like the best approach to me. Or at least the fairest. Maybe if an interesting PR is submitted it will give extra incentive to process the waiting PRs to get to it. -- John