From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 07:55:24 2011 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG> 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 612EF1065670 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:55:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.153.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADE38FC12 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-51-20.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.51.20]:41592 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.73) (envelope-from <erikt@midgard.homeip.net>) id 1QEzaO-0004Pm-E5 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:55:05 +0200 Received: (qmail 14706 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2011 09:54:59 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 09:54:59 +0200 Received: (qmail 28887 invoked by uid 1001); 27 Apr 2011 09:54:59 +0200 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:54:59 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> Message-ID: <20110427075459.GB28824@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.51.20 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1QEzaO-0004Pm-E5. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net 1QEzaO-0004Pm-E5 3dc943bff410a842e62f7b96ff176929 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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 <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:55:24 -0000 On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 08:05:43AM +0200, John Marino wrote: > 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. A committer is always responsible for his/her commits and so should do at least minimal testing of any patches even if it is from a maintainer. > > 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? Not really, since some PRs might require a *lot* of work (and/or might be controversial) and thus could block other, far simpler, PRs if they were taken strictly in order. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se