Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:16:28 -0500 From: Jim Ohlstein <jim@ohlste.in> To: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? Message-ID: <52E48C1C.3090300@ohlste.in> In-Reply-To: <CAGBxaX=9TvA7D4f5PnWZwGzvVrZBO1HcP1X=C8hpDM2GVDNoJA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHcXP%2Bf6e-t--XbQPTH1goJp_CL7P=zTj5trZVWd4YZ_EsO9gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGBxaX=t3e5SXoBDHnzAbx=SWbEFMJHNPQL13FnwNgKWM3gCiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHcXP%2Bew5qt5hc9Y%2BR_njPkfhUMsDDAqNk9aYSacV4PwBmqjfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGBxaXnXwo4JxnRdffZfdvfETfhgJNkFM-N23H1SOT0G3-oMwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-m3X2dQTTsbrTJg2iPT3qkfq7h9U8oGbRZXGAXH%2BJ2T4MFNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHcXP%2BdtHPHT%2BFD8RdcqhGANBPf1Gk4N4coEpZY-eAuQE3iZtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-m3X2rWk-0k_yH1PK0iN_5YhvSh1UsV0VCrroJq==687X1ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <CAGBxaXnfb2yPZZCaf6mYzASzT13b68A8iPT6eUwUdU9W1ya_Qg@mail.gmail.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> <CAGBxaXkCWAAfA%2B7x9-icTwO4Vd78EGOeh5-4eG3DUJ_gGVHT1g@mail.gmail.com> <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org> <52E47EF7.7040402@ohlste.in> <CAGBxaX=9TvA7D4f5PnWZwGzvVrZBO1HcP1X=C8hpDM2GVDNoJA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, On 1/25/14, 10:33 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > > I like the KISS approach myself. This can be boiled down to those > two issues, one of which is a symptom of the other. Arguing and > debating over a long term solution to the OP's question does nothing > to solve the problem in the short to intermediate term. There are > 1680 current ports related PR's at this moment. > > > The reason for the whole tangent was the observation that large number > of the pending PR's are likely to fail one or more *BASIC* tests and > setting stuff up to run those tests is trivial (like I said I voluneteer > to do it)... the other main thread there was that some of the *IDEAS* of > SCM can borrowed and incorporated into manual procedures (such as > requiring a successful build before a human will look at it) the other > one is a more formalized workflow such as the one that aegis > enforces.... if just the first is done I think half the PR's can be > cleared out immediately and if both then 80% can be cleared out within a > few weeks > > None of those *IDEAS* solve the current problem. The personal argument solves less than nothing. Debate is cool. Telling people they don't know anything is not. Your statement looks to be pure supposition to me. On http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=ports&severity=&priority=&class=&state=&sort=none&text=&responsible=&multitext=&originator=&release= the vast majority of them are not color coded beyond white which simply means "open". Many have not even been assigned. Only a comparatively small number are "analyzed", "[awaiting] feedback", "patched", "suspended", or "closed". In other words no one knows how many will fail. The ones that are a decade old probably will. Those from the last few months, the majority, are anyone's guess since they haven't even been reviewed. That is unless you have some hard data to back up your claim about those percentages. As for changing the "workflow", again, that's not a short-term solution, and probably not even a medium-term answer. The answer is to get them looked at and stop having a pissing contest over who knows more and who knows less. *THAT* solves nothing. Peace out. -- Jim Ohlstein "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52E48C1C.3090300>