Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:54:05 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? Message-ID: <4DB8664D.70001@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20110427101257.414aaf8b@seibercom.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <BANLkTinoGufNYZmkFgQmwGR4RjBXWXcDTA@mail.gmail.com> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> <19896.4396.161941.282904@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net> <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20110427101257.414aaf8b@seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/27/2011 4:12 PM, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 > Erik Trulsson<ertr1013@student.uu.se> articulated: > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:32:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote: >> 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. > I seemed to have kicked off quite a dialog! First of all, I want to thank Frederic Culot for committing my patch today. Basically, I'm in complete agreement with Jerry with regards to FIFO. The proposal was made that given a short amount a time, a committer should choose the simpler project and bypass the first one simply based on time/complexity. I couldn't disagree more. As soon as it's possible to skip valid ports, then that's what is going to happen. If people can physically cherry-pick, then they'll exercise their ability to do that and immediately you sink into the current situation. Unfortunately, a FIFO setup requires that all the requests go through a single entity who then assigns them. I don't really buy the joe-the-font-guy with mary-the-network-gal mismatch. Nobody said the PRs have to be assigned as round-robin. And then that changes the dynamic since the PR is assigned rather than chosen. This entity can't just assign a PR without knowing the committer's timeline, availability, etc, so there are clearly implementation details to work out. Maybe a compromise would be to keep the current system in place with the addition of having somebody do these assignments if the new PRs are unclaimed for more than 3-7 days. Yes, it means a new job for someone, but if one believes that FIFO is the fair and respectful approach, the extra effort should be worth it. -- John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DB8664D.70001>