Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:40:26 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters Message-ID: <CADLo83-dr7v46ct9AtNsBm=ApDKiar67wwOwx5467tzzavq4zw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <500690C9.5080700@marino.st> References: <50017C97.3050200@filez.com> <CADLo83_a=qOqTgGQF%2BLSYyGDaJoT6B2vF9JGV=a2ZHRXRyR6Pw@mail.gmail.com> <20120714192119.GA61563@vniz.net> <5001CB97.6070205@filez.com> <CAF6rxgkYjKAcLqX6ehX04ho-g7mCvcDOOb1KJC1Oxc4zvfjtHA@mail.gmail.com> <50054F6E.9040002@filez.com> <50055293.3010002@FreeBSD.org> <20120717213902.GB21825@lonesome.com> <5005E2AE.3040806@marino.st> <20120717224302.GA26742@lonesome.com> <50065B3B.8040404@marino.st> <CADLo83_9FexxjUA8Ws02iFUhB5VLqCQzf7G4ELcm2S2uJFhkxQ@mail.gmail.com> <500690C9.5080700@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Jul 2012 11:33, "John Marino" <freebsdml@marino.st> wrote: > > On 7/18/2012 12:19, Chris Rees wrote: >> >> On 18 Jul 2012 07:44, "John Marino"<freebsdml@marino.st> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, somebody would have to set that up but it would pay big dividend I >> >> think. >> >> It also does away with the QA aspect that committers currently provide. >> I'd like to repeat that people sufficiently familiar with the ports system >> to QA patches generally ends up with a commit bit fairly quickly. >> >> Chris > > > > I wouldn't assume people that become this proficient necessarily want a commit bit. > > The whole point of my proposal is give and take. > Yes, you take away "QA" responsibility from an entire pool of committers and make it the primary responsibility of this new class of maintainer on a per port basis (and not nearly all ports either). I was proposing that your gains (much less PRs, more often maintained ports) far outweigh the liabilities. I would be selective who gets assigned to this new class. They should have a body of work that instills confidence that they can handle QA. > > You don't get something for nothing and it's not hard to revoke the privilege if a person can't handle it. You are making a good point, but I'm trying to explain that the 'body of work' for proposing a new developer is no greater than the standard you suggest. We do have developers who only commit to their own ports; while it's generally hoped that they work on PRs too, it's not a requirement. These would fall under the category of 'super maintainers' if you like. For further reading, Google 'Solutions for the PR load problem'. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-dr7v46ct9AtNsBm=ApDKiar67wwOwx5467tzzavq4zw>