[DRAFT] ports contributor's guide

Charles Swiger cswiger at mac.com
Mon Dec 8 10:37:10 PST 2003

On Dec 6, 2003, at 5:11 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> "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?
> Of course.  That's why we have humans as committers :-)

Well, yes.  It's nice that we agree here (I'd be afraid of inhuman 
committers :-), but was there more to your comments then this?  Are you 
suggesting a procedure by which a committer who has some doubts about a 
port should handle the situation?  Are you trying to come up with 
additional tests reminiscient of the "2.4 Testing the port" chapter of 
the Porter's Handbook that committers should apply?

As discussed below, I don't think adding the "make sure your port is 
useful" test to the PH would be helpful as written, but perhaps "2.6 
Submitting the port" could be extended with more details about the 
actions taken by a committer when reviewing a port submission (ie, 
testing it with portlint et al, checking to see whether the port is 
filed in the right category, seeing whether the port submission 
duplicates existing ports, etc).

I think guidelines like these would indicate that there is a review 
process AND also help explain why it takes a while for submissions to 
be processed, without needlessly emphasizing to a new porter that one's 
port submission might fail such a review.

>> 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.
> Well, I can live with this.  OTOH claiming it will lead to more rapid 
> commital might not actually be supported by the facts :-) but the part 
> about it being appreciated should certainly go in.

OK.  Maybe: "In the event that the committer reviewing the port 
submission encounters a problem, being willing to maintain the port you 
have submitted will help to resolve such problems more rapidly"...?


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list