Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:54:59 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? Message-ID: <20110427075459.GB28824@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110427075459.GB28824>