RELEASE_X_Y_Z branches/tags maintained??

[Roman Kennke]

Am Mo, den 25.10.2004 schrieb Mark Linimon um 8:52:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Roman Kennke wrote:
> 
> > Am Mo, den 25.10.2004 schrieb Kris Kennaway um 0:30:
> > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 08:19:36PM +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > > > Hello list,
> > > > 
> > > > I have a question regarding the branches/tags of the ports tree for
> > > > stable releases. Are they in any way maintained.
> > > 
> > > No.
> > 
> > Hmm, wouldn't this be a good thing to do, especially on production
> > machines?
> 
> This question comes up once or twice a year.  It is _possible_ that
> it would be a good thing to do ... given infinite manpower, which we
> don't have.  What we do have is almost 12k ports * 12 build environments
> (cross product of major release * chip architecture).
> 
> Even with just maintaining one single line of development for ports,
> we aren't managing all that coverage, and we aren't making headway
> on getting the number of PRs down (we were making slow progress until
> the freeze, but we gained 200 during that time.)  We're only getting
> somewhere around 95% of the i386 ports, 90% of the amd64 and sparc64
> ports, and we are having trouble with the alpha build machines.
> 
> Oh yeah, and 3153 ports with no maintainer, which is another problem
> altogether :-)

So it is the old problem of quantity vs. quality :-/ I would help out if
I had time and knowledge.
 Are these problems documented somewhere (e.g. a list of unmaintained
ports, ...) ? Is there someone screaming: "hey, we have problems, please
help out!" or "please fix known problems before adding new ones (== new
ports)"

/Roman