On 4/27/2011 4:12 PM, Jerry wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:36 +0200
Erik Trulsson<ertr1...@student.uu.se> articulated:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:32:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
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. 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.
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.
I seemed to have kicked off quite a dialog! First of all, I want to
thank Frederic Culot for committing my patch today.
Basically, I'm in complete agreement with Jerry with regards to FIFO.
The proposal was made that given a short amount a time, a committer
should choose the simpler project and bypass the first one simply based
on time/complexity. I couldn't disagree more. As soon as it's possible
to skip valid ports, then that's what is going to happen. If people can
physically cherry-pick, then they'll exercise their ability to do that
and immediately you sink into the current situation.
Unfortunately, a FIFO setup requires that all the requests go through a
single entity who then assigns them. I don't really buy the
joe-the-font-guy with mary-the-network-gal mismatch. Nobody said the
PRs have to be assigned as round-robin. And then that changes the
dynamic since the PR is assigned rather than chosen. This entity can't
just assign a PR without knowing the committer's timeline, availability,
etc, so there are clearly implementation details to work out.
Maybe a compromise would be to keep the current system in place with the
addition of having somebody do these assignments if the new PRs are
unclaimed for more than 3-7 days. Yes, it means a new job for someone,
but if one believes that FIFO is the fair and respectful approach, the
extra effort should be worth it.
-- John
_______________________________________________
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"
