On 18 Jul 2012 11:33, "John Marino" <freebs...@marino.st> wrote: > > On 7/18/2012 12:19, Chris Rees wrote: >> >> On 18 Jul 2012 07:44, "John Marino"<freebs...@marino.st> wrote: >>> >>> Yes, somebody would have to set that up but it would pay big dividend I >> >> think. >> >> It also does away with the QA aspect that committers currently provide. >> I'd like to repeat that people sufficiently familiar with the ports system >> to QA patches generally ends up with a commit bit fairly quickly. >> >> Chris > > > > I wouldn't assume people that become this proficient necessarily want a commit bit. > > The whole point of my proposal is give and take. > Yes, you take away "QA" responsibility from an entire pool of committers and make it the primary responsibility of this new class of maintainer on a per port basis (and not nearly all ports either). I was proposing that your gains (much less PRs, more often maintained ports) far outweigh the liabilities. I would be selective who gets assigned to this new class. They should have a body of work that instills confidence that they can handle QA. > > You don't get something for nothing and it's not hard to revoke the privilege if a person can't handle it.
You are making a good point, but I'm trying to explain that the 'body of work' for proposing a new developer is no greater than the standard you suggest. We do have developers who only commit to their own ports; while it's generally hoped that they work on PRs too, it's not a requirement. These would fall under the category of 'super maintainers' if you like. For further reading, Google 'Solutions for the PR load problem'. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"