From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 28 21:41:25 2011 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 E92511065680; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:41:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=092be6323=pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) Received: from ip-001.utdallas.edu (ip-001.utdallas.edu [129.110.20.107]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2668FC13; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:41:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Group: None X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au0JAFXXuU2BbgogSmdsb2JhbACmEAEBIAIkiRW9U4V2BIYJlno X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,283,1301893200"; d="scan'208";a="59459610" Received: from zxtm01.utdallas.edu (HELO [129.110.200.11]) ([129.110.10.32]) by ip-001.utdallas.edu with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Apr 2011 16:12:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:12:12 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl To: Matthias Andree , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4DB9D390.2090102@FreeBSD.org> References: <4DB7B237.7000603@marino.st> <20110427075436.70ae18ac@seibercom.net> <4DB96EC9.8000506@FreeBSD.org> <20110428190745.GE77343@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <4DB9D390.2090102@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: 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 Reply-To: Paul Schmehl List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:41:26 -0000 --On April 28, 2011 10:52:32 PM +0200 Matthias Andree wrote: > 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. > I personally think it's a bad idea for a port maintainer to be the committer for their own ports. Getting even minor changes committed to the tree should require two independent sets of eyes. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell