From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 9 17:30:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CF3106566B for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:30:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shaun@FreeBSD.org) Received: from dione.picobyte.net (81-86-230-94.dsl.pipex.com [81.86.230.94]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B86A8FC20 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:30:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from charon.picobyte.net (charon.picobyte.net [IPv6:2001:770:15d::fe03]) by dione.picobyte.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66DDB882; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:25:03 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:25:03 +0100 From: Shaun Amott To: Dominic Fandrey Message-ID: <20100709172503.GA22795@charon.picobyte.net> References: <4C374B3E.90704@bsdforen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C374B3E.90704@bsdforen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (FreeBSD i386) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Solutions for the PR load problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:30:20 -0000 On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > > 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). > The whole VCS debate has been had over and over; I think that for the time being it is more constructive to look at changes we can make to our existing processes. Anything that requires switching from CVS isn't going to happen any time soon. One thing that is sorely missed -- by me, at least -- is the ports tinderbox mini-cluster we had previously (graciously provided by simon and erwin). The major bottleneck in the review/commit process is the testing part (again, I speak for myself). A set of tinderbox machines representing the tier-1 architectures, to which we could grant contributors access, would reduce the burden on committers (if a patch/PR arrives with an accompanying log file). Shaun -- Shaun Amott // PGP: 0x6B387A9A "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson