Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:06:31 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO? Message-ID: <20110428000631.GA32870@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <4DB89B38.4000404@marino.st> 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> <4DB8664D.70001@marino.st> <20110427221813.GB32138@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <4DB89B38.4000404@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:39:52AM +0200, John Marino wrote: > On 4/28/2011 12:18 AM, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > And if the committers can't choose what they are going to work on, you > > are likely going find yourself with a lot fewer committers fairly soon. > > > As you notice, I never said they are limited what they work on. The > order of the work is the focus. But if they are forced to do certain tasks first, there might well not be time over to do other things later. I.e. they are limited in what they work on. > > > > And who is going to do all that extra work? You volunteering? > > If finding a volunteer is the only thing holding a reform back, then we > have nothing to worry about. Hardly the only thing, merely one of the things. > > There is also the question of what to do if a committer doesn't like > > all the proposed extra rules and bureacracy and simply ignores a PR he > > has been assigned. There isn't really any way force a given committer > > to work on something he doesn't want to work on. The only sanction > > available is to remove the commit bit at which point you have one > > committer less, and that work still isn't done. > I was working the assumption that he agrees to the port up front or > voluntarily picks up the next task. However, if someone has a repeated > history of refusals or only wants to do a very narrow set of tasks, then > maybe commit bit removal isn't that dramatic. I didn't say anything about dramatic. My point is that removing that persons commit bit would not serve any useful purpose, and is not enough punishment that the threat of it is likely to convince any committer to do anything he doesn't fell like doing. > > Worth it for who? Hardly to the guy who is going to do the extra work. > > As for "fair" you haven't convinced me why it should be a requirement. > > I don't consider it extra work. I consider it doing the job correctly. > And if I need to convince you that "fair" is correct, then basically I > just wasted 5 minutes answering this post. Jerry pretty much outlined > why it's correct to process these things in order, or at some semblance > of order. Only under certain assumptions that are far from obviously correct. > > Look, your mind is made up. You like the status quo. Everything is > fine and no effort should be made to improve. I'm not interested in a > long, drawn out discussion. I just wanted to give my opinion which I > did, so I'm done. Oh, I am not saying that the current situation is ideal. It isn't. Far from it. What I am saying is that your proposed solution is a bad idea that is more likely to cause problems than to solve them. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110428000631.GA32870>