From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 13:45:51 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 60D3A106566B for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerry@seibercom.net) Received: from mail-gw0-f68.google.com (mail-gw0-f68.google.com [74.125.83.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1149E8FC18 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwj19 with SMTP id 19so281445gwj.7 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.78.4 with SMTP id f4mr2134142ybl.240.1303911950009; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scorpio.seibercom.net (twdp-174-109-142-001.nc.res.rr.com [174.109.142.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q29sm424130ybk.25.2011.04.27.06.45.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seibercom.net (zeus [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: freebsd-ports.user@scorpio.seibercom.net) by scorpio.seibercom.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3QKMxl2cYSz2CG5G for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:45:46 -0400 From: Jerry To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110427094546.798d8367@seibercom.net> In-Reply-To: References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> Organization: seibercom.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.1; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAJFBMVEUeH4oAAI3//v8LDHmw s8gyNZ/b3ej7+vn+/v////+PjIc8Plaj/TnQAAACNElEQVQ4jaXUvW/aQBQAcFtKGZLFT+YY 3D1SR9SKoRMncE3IggU4kicGi1JYOgQwyYrgnLlSzhsoNkTuVJEp+ef6ztiAoV3aJ+QPfufn s987S/5fQvoXYPjztmfc514Ks+5JfGUCfrzt4+VabF+jwEV4DGEXN8N4p16sPLxHX07/V3qX yfF5D2H6K4V8j9NkyAphvkjBembD5PDFk3zeTzP1jcksyaV9w+d4ELmUoOp8N2p8uQVyhTAT uawnKNH2mie5lJp48mscUcbJUvg0mR6APwAoye9AMyWozY4gAh0vcxa5FJ4TKCuODESWtfkB 8AEQSupUXNIYH8FSC2w8X3eMBNbbVJpJ7MgECO5yJ9DUEWCYkzNAlsRsgwLQ1GkWqELbkDOh 1bUzoHagYkNh9MXlK/MQoA42gTxz2bhPM2DJedm8MZx6cNfJgEZJ5cmwPp5FZ/Ye8O2qTrFV dgOrHkZRBoheJiGrRquwAhnQ6GeTePPerWVmQelAQ5lwNqtvQd2lcooAV74/zR1BIRS19fy5 ru+B/8ReW9pYKMPjt609zDaitHHTGOO+Zu7gHvsKE7XbeE1QVuJXomIFuZgUJdXQdhpqEELc /e8RLjfi+cQ01yMdWot8UcCVxEWHEkcUrsDGuhaIEoM9kfgAR6jxHcmEV7tNURAl8KTHN9iF McKGFHGO62O62UMpbmlVuogQ7ndL8zXCiLeBy3xpfrqaXS/+AHDG4o8AvhuPeezD/3xL/hy/ Adjlg2odglF2AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:45:51 -0000 On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:17:46 -0400 Steven Kreuzer articulated: > > Personally, I believe that the current system, if not partially > > broken, is far from ideal. > > Speaking as a ports committer, I do agree with you that the current > workflow that we have in place is less then ideal for the size of the > ports tree as well as the number of patches that we receive. > > When the current workflow was first developed, the ports tree was much > smaller and > easier to work with. It has grown to over 23,000 ports and we are > starting to see scaling issues. > > However, these issues have been known for quite some time. Behind the > scenes, numerous ideas have been kicked around on how to better deal > with contributions from > independent developers, how to accept and review patches quicker and > how to generally > streamline our workflow. > > Unfortunately, the problem really becomes that unless we want to > severely disrupt what > we currently have in place for an extended period of time, we can > really only make small > gradual changes and hope that eventually we end up in a better > position then when we > started. > > > I would prefer to see a system where each submitted > > PR is assigned a specific number (I believe it is actually) and then > > assigned in numeric order to the next available committer. That > > committer would then be responsible for either committing the > > PR/Port/Whatever within a preset time frame, or informing the > > original submitter why the said article was not/could not be > > approved at the present time. Allowing a submitter to languish > > while pondering what has become of their document certainly does > > seem justified. > > The problem with this system is that certain developers sometimes only > work on a certain > subset of the tree. Your fifo system does not take that into account > > For example, I maintain quite a few perl modules and often > grab PRs for perl related things. This is mainly because I have an > interest in keeping > the perl stuff in good shape because I use it every day. I generally > never deal with > any PR that deals with ruby since I don't use ruby. As a result, I am > not familiar with > the ruby specific knobs in the ports tree. I would rather let another > developer who is > familiar with those and has an interest in keeping ruby well > maintained deal with those > PRs. Unfortunately, from time to time, the person who deals with the > ruby stuff could be > swamped with work or family issues and is unable to attend to it as > quickly as I may have > been able to. Would you prefer to wait a little while longer for that > person to grab the PR, or > would you rather have me commit the patch and possibly break your > application running in > production? > > Also, with your fifo system, what would happen if I don't commit an > update within the allotted > time frame? > > Perhaps the happy medium is that if you submit a PR and it doesn't get > assigned for a few days, > maybe ask in #bsdports on irc if someone could take a look at the PR. > If you submit a patch > and it does get assigned but a few days goes by and it doesn't get > committed, we could update the > PR to let you know that we haven't had a chance to look at it but hope > to have a little bit of time in > the next few days to take care of it. Thank you. A well thought out reply and one that I can agree with in most aspects. I think that 'UPDATING' the PR to let the submitter know that he/she has not been forgotten and to keep them aware of any problems with the PR is certainly a welcome suggestion. Unfortunately, that is rarely presently done. Certainly, we should all be able to come to some consensus as to what constitutes a reasonable time frame. -- Jerry ✌ jerry+ports@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________