From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 9 16:26:58 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F165106567A for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:26:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5D08FC1B for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb34 with SMTP id 34so2008457wyb.13 for ; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:26:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:received :reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=eW7u8a9tAiA7xDNtNf+Z5W0NVOK9HaeHS3z4lYDIGMo=; b=R6dPSd4TKH4Dk6GfGboQEaXs/rYKiFfdP3kX5q6o8SryM4aw8+enxU2r9hb4BiAGUi Ri4+VzAlajwTVDdnjJqw8iW1j/SKGrIQygfteDP9RU3qw0dqq8pzMAr4uqvT+D/gNzBn OlCyz6Dyp6q7QyHBGDIjIY4vVbKGJIUrf/W2Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; b=fdz1nOpqm183QpfJKIw5QwWrtN/CnZoTqXc6fZKM7+z+9+j9Z8FcmFHk6AF6gymkSr DTMSGJKS5yxYKFi+LeEgMcNXgPX+hWKjoV+5NXGRBQW3AC2pwy7PxsNYprkVhGLcOtIQ CnhSGmXJCUnYL+QZhuHgnrgAlQJ0TMLUn2hR4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.134.18 with SMTP id h18mr8554065wbt.216.1278692812936; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.67.131 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.67.131 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 09:26:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4C374B3E.90704@bsdforen.de> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:26:52 +0100 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Dominic Fandrey , "ports@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: Re: Solutions for the PR load problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: utisoft@gmail.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:26:58 -0000 I think the people you describe as 'experienced' maintainers tend to be made committers anyway, or that's as far as I know. There's little to be gained by putting another rank of responsibility in, especially when a commit to any port can cause huge wreckage; INDEX building, circular dependencies etc. This is why only committers have commit access, as I see it. -------- Sorry for top-posting, Android won't let me quote. There's a bug report on it! On 9 Jul 2010 17:16, "Dominic Fandrey" wrote: Currently the PR load is obviously too high for the committer team to deal with. From a maintainer perspective this is rather painful, I have currently stopped updating all my ports, because I want pending updates committed first and also want to avoid running into PR dependencies (ioquake3, openarena and iourbanterror are examples in my case). Also it adds the burden of adjusting your patches every time the PORTREVISION is bumped, because of a library update, thus producing additional workload without benefit to anyone. To solve this problem with the current organization, my guess is that between 15 and 30 new active committers are required. Because I don't think this is easily achieved I want to suggest a different approach. And I expect many others also have their own ideas how this can be solved. Proposal: My idea is that experienced Maintainers get commit permission for their own ports. I don't even think such a thing needs to be enforced technically, after all who'd want to risk his experienced maintainer bit, however this is possible (and people would probably sleep better). Technical Approach: One, though not the only, technical approach is to switch to SVN and use path based access control. A pretty primitive shell script, probably less than 10 lines could generate the SVN path configuration, from just a list of users. It need not even be run on the server and wouldn't have to be run often. There also exist solutions that add similar features to CVS, but I do prefer SVN. Pros: - Less Maintainer-Update PRs - Maintainers can deal with third party patches directly instead of just providing feedback, so the actual ports committers would only have to close the PRs - Path based access control can be turned off during ports freezes Cons: - Higher server load - Additional user management - Testing guidlines in the Porters' Handbook need to be extended - Experienced Maintainers have to be defined Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"