Dropping maintainership of my ports

[Kurt Jaeger]

Eitan Adler wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Kurt Jaeger <lists at opsec.eu> wrote:
> > Then you have misunderstood things.  I don't think anybody would be
> > unhappy if you (or anybody else) took maintainership of one or more of
> > the currently unmaintained ports.
> 
> > There are two things. Becoming a maintainer seems to be really easy.
> 
> Becoming a maintainer requires that you commit to do the work to
> ensure that a certain program works on FreeBSD. How easy this is
> depends on you.

Yes, that's how I handle it.

> > Having one's PRs committed is a bit more difficult and sometimes
> > takes 4-6 weeks (I had a case recently with 155399 and 155400).
> 
> There is a lot of work that has to be done in the background even if
> no new ports are added.

I'm aware of this. What I see is that only a few ports committer
do most of the commits of the small leaf ports. This would burn
me out as well, if I had to do it 8-}

So, if the maintainers of the small leaf ports would be able
to commit their work themselves, it would free the ports committers
with the large ports projects on their hands to work on those ?

Would this work ?

> Things like the gmake upgrade and new ports
> features take a lot of time.  Furthermore adding a port seems to be a
> "trivial" task, however the committers have to (a) fix it up if it is
> formatted badly (b) test it in a tinderbox and only then (c) commit
> it.

I use three boxes (for 8.1 i386, amd64 and 9-current amd64) to
test. I do not use a tinderbox, as I assume considerable complexity
to set one up.

Does using a tinderbox make a large difference ?

> This takes more time than just "cvs commit". A lot of work has
> been done in recent years to make this process faster and I'm sure
> more could be done - but a lot of people don't realize how much work
> goes on behind the scenes

I agree, the infrastructure is massive!

-- 
pi at opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         9 years to go !