From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 26 04:16:37 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272BF33F for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com (mail-qc0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBAAE1535 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id e16so6363559qcx.7 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:16:29 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wYL8/TFmEDveO+5gxpm/dlnIOCHrIQj4br9rcHkcSL0=; b=XiBIrK4yvGtWHgVrgKPBTGTgxGu2mXBGTApjigOdsaAxkZQbWbVKRPWKqBGxd5VOzv MatxXnOYNeRm8fUJnVNrRCT7t7gycEkc2eR7nAVn6zPu/+PrtThUm076/srckdRi6FPa 6vErWfFxL4Pr9xkq/WOTl4XJwQGjbAENw89rWcNkT1gDR3NifwYPDXrT3M0wcPCWfc6r dIPRX5Wwpgf81DvZIe+tqtjWaLOEewZWJp5L258a5ih8q7zD9XeLMdiGEb3vHyyVCMpj qqygKIwP4rjZIn1G+b3cuG1fGzSWIMGqFIDc/zxSxGaBRR6gth9u9HXYv32BEh59CgaT W3Zg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQntXQEUAENm5zYkINACH1RgzG8B+jipxTSHsmqFlKECa3ynf1RHM1eTWPVXBa9bxVfo7Btd X-Received: by 10.140.21.179 with SMTP id 48mr30704590qgl.78.1390709789395; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (ool-45793681.dyn.optonline.net. [69.121.54.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 67sm5083484qgr.15.2014.01.25.20.16.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:16:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E48C1C.3090300@ohlste.in> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:16:28 -0500 From: Jim Ohlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aryeh Friedman Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? References: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org> <52E47EF7.7040402@ohlste.in> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alfred Perlstein , FreeBSD Ports ML X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:16:37 -0000 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