Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:15:19 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? Message-ID: <20110427191519.6388a158@seibercom.net> In-Reply-To: <20110427223305.GA32276@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <BANLkTinoGufNYZmkFgQmwGR4RjBXWXcDTA@mail.gmail.com> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> <19896.4396.161941.282904@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20110427093258.3966cfd2@seibercom.net> <20110427134836.GA30085@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20110427101257.414aaf8b@seibercom.net> <20110427223305.GA32276@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:33:05 +0200 Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> articulated: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:12:57AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200 > > Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> articulated: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:32:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:50:52 -0400 > > > > > > > > However, I do find troubling you statement regarding a large > > > > update to an older port or even a new port submission for that > > > > matter. I see no logical reason for a committer to bypass an > > > > item simple based on its size or the amount of work involved in > > > > getting it committed. After all, consider that the original > > > > submitter invested a large amount of his/her time in that same > > > > item. > > > > > > Very simple. A particular committer during one particular period > > > of time maybe only 45 minutes of free time to spend on handling > > > PRs. If the committer estimates that one large submitted PR would > > > take at least two hours to review, test, and commit, while > > > another, smaller, PR would only take 30 minutes to handle. > > > > > > Then the committer in question would have two choices: Don't > > > handle either submission, or handling the smaller submission, > > > while skipping the large one and hoping that some other committer > > > with more free time will pick up that one. > > > I see no reason to prefer the first of these choices. > > > > If the committer cannot finish the project in their allotted time > > frame they simply stop and pick up from that point in their next > > session. > > Or they can take a look at that project, decide that they are not > interested in doing that particular project, and say "Screw this, I > have better things do with my free time" and go off and read a book > instead. They might do that anyway. Seriously though, once you start cherry picking through assignments you have started down a slippery slope. > > I have literally hundreds of projects that I cannot complete > > in one day; however, I don't simply shrug them off. If I did nothing > > would ever get accomplished, or at best only the easiest > > assignments. > > Hundreds? Sounds a bit excessive if you were to ask me. > > If you have that many things to do then FIFO is a downright stupid way > to approach them unless you know you have enough time to do *all* of > them. (And it is rare that there is that much time available.) > With that many things to do one needs to prioritize. First one should > do the important stuff, and if there is any time left after having > done that one might as well pick the fun projects, because there just > isn't much point in doing boring, unimportant stuff. Following through on that logic, only the highest priority items would ever get done. Since there is a never ending list of things that have to be done at any given time, the lowest priority ones would never get any attention. Do you work for the government by any chance? > > One of the basic fallacies in your analysis is that someone else > > will pick up the slack. Unfortunately, our society has become over > > run by those who are always ready to blame others or expect others > > to do our job for us. Quite honestly, I find that pathetic. > > And yet you are so quick at blaming committers for not doing things > the way you think they should be done. Pot. Kettle. Black. It is not the committers per se that I am questioning, but rather the overall protocol used for assigning each project and seeing it through to completion. I have all ready had a few who either are more knowledgeable about the present situation or at least are better equipped to converse about it than yourself, post regarding the present situation. By the way, is your reference to "Black" a race reference? And what could you possibly have against a defenseless "Kettle"? Personally, I think you have been spending too much time with the "Pot". You are becoming increasingly paranoid. Perhaps you should, as you so eloquently stated, "pick the fun projects, because there just isn't much point in doing boring, unimportant stuff." Lets leave those other projects for those who actually take pride in their work and don't just choose the easy way out. -- Jerry ✌ jerry+ports@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ Grief can take care of itself; but to get the full value of a joy you must have somebody to divide it with. Mark Twain
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110427191519.6388a158>