How are [MAINTAINER] patches handled and why aren't PRs FIFO?

Erik Trulsson ertr1013 at
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

> 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

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list