From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 9 17:37:35 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 7D18B106566C for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:37:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [212.204.60.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348BA8FC1A for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 17:37:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (HSI-KBW-078-042-098-160.hsi3.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [78.42.98.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB5B8A21A2; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 19:37:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C375E47.9020307@bsdforen.de> Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:37:11 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100627 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Shaun Amott References: <4C374B3E.90704@bsdforen.de> <20100709172503.GA22795@charon.picobyte.net> In-Reply-To: <20100709172503.GA22795@charon.picobyte.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 17:37:35 -0000 On 09/07/2010 19:25, Shaun Amott wrote: > 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. You can also do this with CVS. > 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). What needs to be done? (I.e. money, work hours) -- 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?