From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 6 13:33:30 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E9916A4CE for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D14743F3F for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:33:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin07-en2 [10.13.10.152]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id hB6LXTcq004176 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:33:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (pool-162-84-170-16.ny5030.east.verizon.net [162.84.170.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin07/MantshX 3.0) with ESMTP id hB6LXRaN023589 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:33:28 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v594) In-Reply-To: <3FD013E7.7080302@lonesome.com> References: <20031205025342.04faf48b.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> <3FD013E7.7080302@lonesome.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:33:28 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.594) cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [DRAFT] ports contributor's guide X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:33:30 -0000 On Dec 5, 2003, at 12:13 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > (I should also mention that I have the ability to send email to > mainainers who are not committers, reminding them of existing > PRs in case they have forgotten, or especially, were not Cc:ed > in the first place. It got a pretty good response the last time > I ran it). GNATS would be more useful if it did this-- mailing the maintainer of a port-- automatically if that person was not CC'ed on the PR submission email. [ In other words, is it convenient to automate this "ability"? :-) ] > The other thing that I wanted to put in the Porter's Handbook > but got reviewed negatively at the time is a section on "ask whether > FreeBSD really needs this port". There is a cost of infrastructure > time and people's QA time to keep the ports framework workable, > and just because someone's got a Sourceforge project doesn't > necessarily mean that FreeBSD necessarily ought to have it in > there. (Basically, I want the test to be "do you think it's going to > be useful to someone else?") A new port submission that hasn't been committed is effectively in the "do we need this state?" If there is reason to question whether the port is useful, can't the committer looking at the PR say so with due tact: "Second opinion -- duplicates ports/misc/foo1 ... 4" ...or some such, indicating that the reviewer wants a second opinion from someone else as to whether the port should be committed (and what the issue is), leaving the PR open and the port uncommitted? > At that same time, I also got a poor reception to my idea suggesting > that if a submitter of a new port wasn't willing to be the maintainer, > then perhaps we should think twice about putting the port in as well. I'm not convinced that putting a comprehensive list of reasons why a committer should reject a new port in the Porter's Handbook is the best way of encouraging people to contribute to the ports system. On the other hand, I don't see any harm in the PH containing a suggestion that being willing to maintain a port one submits is appreciated, will contribute to rapid committal, etc. > [ ...data about unmaintained ports being 40% more likely to be BROKEN... ] Would it be useful to feed new port submissions to build machine for testing to see whether they are broken before the port submission is reviewed by a human? Hmph, misformatted PR's would still require human intervention, so this probably wouldn't be that useful. -- -Chuck