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

[Erik Trulsson]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:12:57AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200
> Erik Trulsson <ertr1013 at student.uu.se> articulated:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:32:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:50:52 -0400
> > > 
> > > However, I do find troubling you statement regarding a large update
> > > to an older port or even a new port submission for that matter. I
> > > see no logical reason for a committer to bypass an item simple
> > > based on its size or the amount of work involved in getting it
> > > committed. After all, consider that the original submitter invested
> > > a large amount of his/her time in that same item.
> > 
> > Very simple.  A particular committer during one particular period of
> > time maybe only 45 minutes of free time to spend on handling PRs.
> > If the committer estimates that one large submitted PR would take at
> > least two hours to review, test, and commit, while another, smaller,
> > PR would only take 30 minutes to handle.
> > 
> > Then the committer in question would have two choices:  Don't handle
> > either submission, or handling the smaller submission, while skipping
> > the large one and hoping that some other committer with more free time
> > will pick up that one.
> > I see no reason to prefer the first of these choices.
> 
> If the committer cannot finish the project in their allotted time
> frame they simply stop and pick up from that point in their next
> session.

Or they can take a look at that project, decide that they are not
interested in doing that particular project, and say "Screw this, I
have better things do with my free time" and go off and read a book
instead.


> I have literally hundreds of projects that I cannot complete
> in one day; however, I don't simply shrug them off. If I did nothing
> would ever get accomplished, or at best only the easiest assignments.

Hundreds? Sounds a bit excessive if you were to ask me.

If you have that many things to do then FIFO is a downright stupid way
to approach them unless you know you have enough time to do *all* of
them.  (And it is rare that there is that much time available.)
With that many things to do one needs to prioritize.  First one should
do the important stuff, and if there is any time left after having done
that one might as well pick the fun projects, because there just isn't
much point in doing boring, unimportant stuff.
 

> 
> One of the basic fallacies in your analysis is that someone else will
> pick up the slack. Unfortunately, our society has become over run by
> those who are always ready to blame others or expect others to do our
> job for us. Quite honestly, I find that pathetic.

And yet you are so quick at blaming committers for not doing things the
way you think they should be done.  Pot. Kettle. Black.


-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se