From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 18:06:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBA616A4CF for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:06:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3117343FB1 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:06:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from lonesome.lonesome.com (cs242746-11.austin.rr.com [24.27.46.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25318140AA; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:06:08 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon Organization: Lonesome Dove Computing Services To: Oliver Eikemeier , Charles Swiger Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:05:30 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> <53EC784E-13C5-11D8-AD24-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311102005.30163.linimon@lonesome.com> cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:06:10 -0000 > I always wondered why we don't have a ports-FRESH and ports-TESTED, > like we have -CURRENT and -STABLE. Because of the duplication of the amount of resources needed to support it. Now we have to think about (stable vs current) * (fresh vs tested), which is basically 4 environments, each adding an incremental effort of QA. I think it would take up more volunteer time than it would free up, myself. > - the wish for a faster moving ports tree This can be cured by getting more people involved as maintainers and committers. There is by no means a shortage of orphaned ports. Everyone should adopt one today! :-) (Hint to readers: I doubt very many people have become ports committers without being maintainers first) > - and the wish for more QA in the PR database, i.e. documented procedures > how and in which timeframe a PR is handled. And what should happen when it isn't? Remember, you're herding cats (volunteers), here. Who will volunteer to be the authority in case of disputes? (Not me, sorry, I'm already booked solid...) mcl