Ability for maintainers to update own ports

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Mark Linimon wrote:

[...]

>>- and the wish for more QA in the PR database, i.e. documented procedures
>>  how and in which timeframe a PR is handled.
> 
> And what should happen when it isn't?  Remember, you're herding cats
> (volunteers), here.  Who will volunteer to be the authority in case of
> disputes?  (Not me, sorry, I'm already booked solid...)

QA is not necessarily about fixed time frames. You *can* document every
procedure you want, and even an infinite timeframe is a timeframe. The
point is that submitters (customers) have a dependable system to work with.

Something like 
  http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/pr-guidelines/pr-lifecycle.html
isn't a bad start. The rule here is "takes interest", so I, as a submitter
know that I have to produce interesting PRs :) Sounds silly, but read the
last sentence a second time: It's a rule we play by.

Next would be
  http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/policies.html#POLICIES-MAINTAINER
(I know that this isn't meant to describe the ports tree) and a little of
  http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/port-upgrading.html

See, we are all playing the same game here, and we need a captain for that.
It's far better if all people play by the second (or third) best strategy than
everyone playing by a different one, of course the best in his own mind.

Even cats have rules ;-)

Oliver