From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr 28 20:52:33 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from apollo.emma.line.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DA11065674
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:52:33 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mandree@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:::1])
	by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B38525AD7F
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:52:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4DB9D390.2090102@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:52:32 +0200
From: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st>	<BANLkTinoGufNYZmkFgQmwGR4RjBXWXcDTA@mail.gmail.com>	<20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net>	<4DB96EC9.8000506@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110428190745.GE77343@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110428190745.GE77343@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:52:33 -0000

Am 28.04.2011 21:07, schrieb Chip Camden:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it committers have commit
> privilege for all ports.  What if certain qualified port maintainers who
> aren't committers were nevertheless given commit access for only the leaf
> ports that they maintain?  Wouldn't that speed up the overall process?

It looks like you're asking for a technical solution to a non-technical
problem.  Chris Rees has posted an archive link, and my take is that
we're already trying to ask such "qualified port maintainers" to become
ports committers and not care too much about how fine-grained ports
access is.