What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?

Baptiste Daroussin bapt at FreeBSD.org
Sun Jan 26 18:54:36 UTC 2014

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 06:01:16PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 1/25/14 4:05 PM, Yuri wrote:
> > On 01/25/2014 15:48, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> >> Git hup (or*ANY*  remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO
> >
> > But both Debian and Fedora do this with automated remote testing, and 
> > they don't seem to complain.
> > How is our ports different in this respect?
> >
> I don't get this either.

Because what they do is more complicated than that and they have way more people
dedicated to review, btw Fedora cannot be compared given they have way less
packages than we have but even if you do compare, then you will discover that
the automated tasks are about the same has what we have.

Concerning debian, the human review is also the bottleneck as for us, they have
just way more people working on packages. So more people to review things.

-------------- 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/20140126/98f88850/attachment.sig>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list