maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters

John Marino mfl-commissioner at
Wed Jul 18 11:00:20 UTC 2012

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 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'.

A very interesting read and essentially addresses the topic I started, 
with a different implementation.

You've been consistent in your concern, but maybe what I'm getting at is 
that these "super maintainers" don't need to be held to the same 
standard as someone with a commit bit.  Hopefully they are every bit as 
capable as a committer, but if they are only interested in maintaining 
say < 10 ports and those ports aren't in the critical path of more 
important ports, what's the harm in handing the reins to a slightly less 
experienced person that wants to do it esp. with a large PR backlog?

If it passes lint and tinderbox checks, it's got to have some 
(acceptable) quality level.  Over time and with experience the 
maintainer will improve anyway, especially if he/she is also directly 
any PRs against the port.

That's another topic -- these super maintainers should be able to close 
PRs as well on their ports.

Speaking for myself, I think I'd make a good super-maintainer and I 
think the quality would be very high on my ports.  I know I'm not alone.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list