Ability for maintainers to update own ports
eta at lclark.edu
Mon Nov 10 12:26:12 PST 2003
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 08:36, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:39:58AM +1100, Sam Lawrance wrote:
> > I guess that's one of the challenges to be dealt with. Having briefly
> > examined nbsd's pkgsrc-wip I think it is a good source of QA. I would
> > like to combine this with a better way of channeling changes back into
> > the tree. Best of both worlds - faster/wider distribution of new
> > changes, larger base of reviewers.
> > But you are right - anything that lowers the quality of the ports tree
> > would be an absolute no-go.
> Sorry, but if you are unhappy with the speed at which ports get
> updated, become a regular and you'll get a commit bit. It's just
> that simple. For most maintainers it's not worth the effort
> because practice makes a better porter.
One thing I've wondered about, though, is the process for people getting
commit bits. Is it always on the initiative of an existing committer
(as it was in my case) or would it be considered acceptable for people
who would like to become committers and maintain their ports directly to
propose themselves on a list for someone to pick them up as a new
Eric Anholt eta at lclark.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt at FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-ports