What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 
> On 1/25/14, 12:11 AM, Yuri wrote:
> > On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that 
> >> makes this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.)
> >
> > github itself is closed source, but 95% of its functionality is based 
> > on git which is open. One only needs to invoke 3-4 git operations to 
> > support what it does on the website side. Register on the site, fork 
> > the project under user's login, submit a pull request, merge a fork's 
> > branch to the main branch. All these are basically git commands. 
> > Without the glossiness of github, this is not that large of a project. 
> > Submitters will do the rest through git.
> >
> > I think, instead of tediously going through the PRs by hand, it is 
> > wiser to set up some system like this.
> >
> Agreed.   +1000
> 
> Although if we go down the rabbit hole of building something "like 
> github" that might take a while.  For now prototyping using the github 
> pull methods might be a good proof of concept.  I may look into doing a 
> github pull request -> GNATS (src) PR gateway if time allows.

Once again github pull request is the worst way of merging patches that exists.

We already have problem with ugly and inaccurate logs, such pull request will
make it even worse.

Making proper merge from github pull request it not that easy, you will need to
fetch pull request as custom branches and cherry-pick them. That is really not
convenient.

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20140125/777825b3/attachment.sig>