On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, joshua stein wrote: > Using CVS and dealing with tarballs is probably pretty > ancient-feeling for many outsiders. I don't know that more > documentation is really the problem. > > I personally tend to ignore most ports@ emails that aren't diffs I > can easily view in my e-mail client because it's a hassle to save > the attachment, tar -t it to see what its directory structure is, > untar it in the proper place, try to build it, then provide feedback > by copying parts of the Makefile to an e-mail or doing some other > work to produce a diff. > > Maybe we can do something radical like enable GitHub pull requests > to let people submit changes against the ports repo on GitHub, do > review and feedback on those on GitHub, and once it's been approved > by a developer, that developer can do the final legwork of > committing it to CVS and closing the pull request (since we can't > commit directly to the Git repo).
I'm late to the party (as usual), but we've been doing this for a while in OpenSSH - we'll review pull requests on github and have one of the developers do the final tidying and commit to CVS. It's worked pretty well, and the quality of submissions is about as good as we get from other outside sources. I believe it's allowed a number of people who would otherwise not have contributed to do so, since the tools are familiar and the hassle factor is so much lower. -d
