From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 14:13:02 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 849B81065675 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:13:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerry@seibercom.net) Received: from mail-yw0-f68.google.com (mail-yw0-f68.google.com [209.85.213.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B908FC08 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so285620ywt.7 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.62.38 with SMTP id p38mr1977223ybk.12.1303913581048; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:13:01 -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 f5sm817524ybh.13.2011.04.27.07.12.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:13:00 -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 3QKNY626xXz2CG5G for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:12:57 -0400 From: Jerry To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110427101257.414aaf8b@seibercom.net> In-Reply-To: <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> <19896.4396.161941.282904@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net> <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.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 14:13:02 -0000 On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 Erik Trulsson articulated: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:32:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:50:52 -0400 > > > > However, I do find troubling you statement regarding a large update > > to an older port or even a new port submission for that matter. I > > see no logical reason for a committer to bypass an item simple > > based on its size or the amount of work involved in getting it > > committed. After all, consider that the original submitter invested > > a large amount of his/her time in that same item. > > Very simple. A particular committer during one particular period of > time maybe only 45 minutes of free time to spend on handling PRs. > If the committer estimates that one large submitted PR would take at > least two hours to review, test, and commit, while another, smaller, > PR would only take 30 minutes to handle. > > Then the committer in question would have two choices: Don't handle > either submission, or handling the smaller submission, while skipping > the large one and hoping that some other committer with more free time > will pick up that one. > I see no reason to prefer the first of these choices. If the committer cannot finish the project in their allotted time frame they simply stop and pick up from that point in their next session. I have literally hundreds of projects that I cannot complete in one day; however, I don't simply shrug them off. If I did nothing would ever get accomplished, or at best only the easiest assignments. One of the basic fallacies in your analysis is that someone else will pick up the slack. Unfortunately, our society has become over run by those who are always ready to blame others or expect others to do our job for us. Quite honestly, I find that pathetic. -- Jerry ✌ jerry+ports@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________