Solutions for the PR load problem

[Dominic Fandrey]

On 09/07/2010 19:25, Shaun Amott wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>>
>> To solve this problem with the current organization, my guess is
>> that between 15 and 30 new active committers are required.
>> Because I don't think this is easily achieved I want to suggest
>> a different approach. And I expect many others also have their
>> own ideas how this can be solved.
>>
>> Proposal:
>> My idea is that experienced Maintainers get commit permission
>> for their own ports. I don't even think such a thing needs to
>> be enforced technically, after all who'd want to risk his
>> experienced maintainer bit, however this is possible (and people
>> would probably sleep better).
>>
> 
> The whole VCS debate has been had over and over; I think that for the
> time being it is more constructive to look at changes we can make to our
> existing processes. Anything that requires switching from CVS isn't
> going to happen any time soon.

You can also do this with CVS.

> One thing that is sorely missed -- by me, at least -- is the ports
> tinderbox mini-cluster we had previously (graciously provided by simon
> and erwin). The major bottleneck in the review/commit process is the
> testing part (again, I speak for myself). A set of tinderbox machines
> representing the tier-1 architectures, to which we could grant
> contributors access, would reduce the burden on committers (if a
> patch/PR arrives with an accompanying log file).

What needs to be done? (I.e. money, work hours)


-- 
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?