On 3/25/2013 5:19 AM, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> On 2012-07-14 18:27, Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 14 July 2012 16:24, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>>> One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets
>>> automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is
>>> not automaticall
On 2012-07-14 18:27, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 14 July 2012 16:24, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>> One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets
>> automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is
>> not automatically unassigned if the person is missing for a few
>>
On 14 August 2012 15:47, Radim Kolar wrote:
> I mailed them, after 1 month no change. I would not bother with creating
> patches next time.
Patches take time. FreeBSD tends to optimize for throughput, not latency.
> I have same experience with pretty much every open source project, everybody
> t
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/165939
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/169910
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/166488
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/167289
Have you reminded them by email recently? Apache@ is a team, so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 18.07.2012 08:37, schrieb Lars Engels:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:43:02PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
>>> Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized
>>> quality co
On 7/18/2012 12:40, Chris Rees wrote:
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
On 18 Jul 2012 11:33, "John Marino" wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2012 12:19, Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Jul 2012 07:44, "John Marino" 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 p
On 7/18/2012 12:19, Chris Rees wrote:
On 18 Jul 2012 07:44, "John Marino" 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
On 18 Jul 2012 07:44, "John Marino" wrote:
>
> On 7/18/2012 00:43, Mark Linimon wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized
>>> quality contributor with history) just got committed as a passthroug
On 7/18/2012 00:43, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized
quality contributor with history) just got committed as a passthrough?
This has been explored on the mailing lists before, howeve
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 05:43:02PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> > Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized
> > quality contributor with history) just got committed as a passthrough?
>
> This has been explored on
On 17 Jul 2012 23:17, "John Marino" wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2012 23:39, Mark Linimon wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:54:59AM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have m
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized
> quality contributor with history) just got committed as a passthrough?
This has been explored on the mailing lists before, however, we don't
technically have a way to do
On 7/17/2012 23:39, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:54:59AM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have more port
commiters? Its difficult to recruit new person?
The answer to
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:54:59AM -0400, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> >>We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
> >ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have more port
> >commiters? Its difficult to recruit new person?
> The answer to that is very complex.
> And, for
On 17 July 2012 04:53, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>
> Radim Kolar :
>
>
>>> We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
>>
>> ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have more port commiters?
>> Its difficult to recruit new person?
>
>
> More committers does not mean that th
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:53:34 +0200
Marcus von Appen articulated:
> Radim Kolar :
>
> >> We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
> > ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have more port
> > commiters? Its difficult to recruit new person?
>
> More committers does
Radim Kolar :
We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have more port
commiters? Its difficult to recruit new person?
More committers does not mean that the backlog will be processed faster,
just as more developers on a pr
On 7/17/12 7:41 AM, Radim Kolar wrote:
We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have more port
commiters? Its difficult to recruit new person?
The answer to that is very complex.
And, for each PR, maybe a different answer.
We *are* making progress in cutting through the backlog though.
ports have about 900 open PR. Why it does not have more port commiters?
Its difficult to recruit new person?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/l
On 14 July 2012 12:42, Radim Kolar wrote:
>
>> Oh yeah! Holy secteam@ proves to have ~5 years timeout.
>
>
> 5 years is nothing special man. I got one too!
none of you beat http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/1375.
sometimes PRs are hard, and sometimes PRs slip through the cracks.
We
Oh yeah! Holy secteam@ proves to have ~5 years timeout.
5 years is nothing special man. I got one too!
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/109272
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebs
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 03:51:23PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 14 July 2012 15:05, Radim Kolar wrote:
> > can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for people
> > which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be exception
> > from standard port processing. I
On 14 July 2012 17:34, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> Chris Rees wrote:
>>> Is automatic unassignment possible?
>>
>> Technically yes, but it's highly undesirable.
>
> Why?
>
>> You can feel free to
>> bring it up here if you think that's happened.
>
> I will, if it'll happen to me. In the mean while he
Chris Rees wrote:
>> Is automatic unassignment possible?
>
> Technically yes, but it's highly undesirable.
Why?
> You can feel free to
> bring it up here if you think that's happened.
I will, if it'll happen to me. In the mean while here's an
incomplete list of PRs that where (auto)assigned to
On 14 July 2012 17:07, Radim Kolar wrote:
>
>>> No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr.
>
> can i get this http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/165939
> unassigned from secteam and processed it as normal freebsd bug? Secteam does
> not seems to be interested
No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr.
can i get this http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/165939
unassigned from secteam and processed it as normal freebsd bug? Secteam
does not seems to be interested enough and it is single line fix.
_
On 14 July 2012 16:24, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
> Chris Rees wrote:
>> No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr.
>
> One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets
> automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is
> not automaticall
Chris Rees wrote:
> No-one is exempt from timeouts on ports except secteam and portmgr.
One problem (at least how it appears to me) is that when a PR gets
automatically assigned to a maintainer who is also a committer, it is
not automatically unassigned if the person is missing for a few
months,
On 14 July 2012 07:51, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 14 July 2012 15:05, Radim Kolar wrote:
>> can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for people
>> which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be exception
>> from standard port processing. If they do not care ab
On 14 July 2012 15:05, Radim Kolar wrote:
> can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for people
> which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be exception
> from standard port processing. If they do not care about their ports, they
> should not have power t
can be maintainer timeout for port patch submissions implemented for
people which are FREEBSD commiters? I see no reason why they should be
exception from standard port processing. If they do not care about their
ports, they should not have power to obstruct other people work.
I have really lo
32 matches
Mail list logo
