How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO?
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se
Wed Apr 27 07:55:24 UTC 2011
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 08:05:43AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> Since we're already in the mood to discuss FreeBSD ports issues, maybe
> somebody can clear something up for me.
>
> Several days ago, I submitted a patch for a port I maintain:
> ports/156541 "[MAINTAINER] Upgrade lang/gnat-aux to release version
> and add C++"
>
> Nobody has touched it, but many other PRs after that submission have
> been assigned, etc. So I have two questions:
>
> 1) What's involved with processing a patch from a maintainer? Is it
> simply a committer commits it on behalf of the maintainer (iow very
> easy?). Or is it the other end of the spectrum where it has to go
> through Tinderbox? I would assume the maintainer is trusted and the
> patch is applied without testing.
A committer is always responsible for his/her commits and so should do
at least minimal testing of any patches even if it is from a
maintainer.
>
> 2) I have very well aware that people dedicate their own time, etc, and
> I think that explains why the PRs are getting cherry picked. But
> seriously, shouldn't there be a policy to process these PRs in order?
Not really, since some PRs might require a *lot* of work (and/or might
be controversial) and thus could block other, far simpler, PRs if they
were taken strictly in order.
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list