Subject: Re: From PR to pkgsrc
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/18/2004 15:16:57
[ On Saturday, December 18, 2004 at 10:45:26 (-0500), Todd Vierling wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: From PR to pkgsrc
> It's certainly better than having packages stagnate in PRs because of lack
> of human time to review them.  And since this thread was about package
> submissions stagnating in PRs, I think the point is blindingly obvious.

People reporting problems in pgksrc, including submissions of new
packages or package upgrades, are going to keep using "send-pr" until
they are told otherwise.  The vast majority of these people will _never_
even try to use pkgsrc-wip, nor should they have to -- something as easy
to use as send-pr, or easier, really should always be the primary means
of soliciting fixes, updates, and change requests.

I.e. I don't see any conflict between having something like pkgsrc-wip
and encouraging new volunteers to use it (first), and yet still
encouraging everyone else to submit their fixes, changes, updates,
etc. through GNATS.  There doesn't have to be a division of resources

Worse yet ignoring submissions that come by one means in preference to
another is in fact going to lead to less volunteering.  PRs are not
necessarily any less valuable than random pkgsrc-wip contritbutions and
letting them stagnate will risk turning off the tap they flow in through.

> So pkgsrc-wip gives newer users a playground to create and test packages,
> allowing broader peer review and collaboration than would typically be
> available through stagnant PRs.

Yes, OK that's fine and I agree that's a perfectly good use for
something like pkgsrc-wip.

However until and unless use of GNATs is officially deprecated for
pkgsrc the available human resources really must be encouraged to handle
GNATS PRs lest the whole GNATS system be unofficially deprected by its
users because they perceive it as a pointless waste of time and effort.
I think that would be the worst possible outcome for all of us.

If the best way to make the most efficient use of pkgsrc-wip volunteers
is to point them at GNATS then maybe that's what should be attempted.

If the the many more, but less trusted, pkgsrc-wip committers can handle
pkg PRs by first implementing them in pkgsrc-wip then that's fine and
good and would be far better than leaving the PRs to stagnate; or worse
yet having pkgsrc-wip committers re-invent the wheels that are already
sitting idle and unused in storage in GNATS.

Not making as best use of GNATS as possible is clearly already risking a
detrimental effect on the quality and quantity of submissions by those
who would only use send-pr for pkgsrc.  The start of this thread was far
from the first time similar complaints and observations have been made
about pkg PRs going stagnant.  I know there are quite a number of my own
pkg PRs still open, though in general I've perceived a more timely
handling of them than PRs I've submitted in other categories, at least
until recently.  However I must also admit that I tend to not be quite
so agressive at submitting PRs about pkgsrc as I could be (I have many
dozens of local fixes and changes that could be appropriate for mass
consumption) because I do also perceive that GNATS PRs in general are
often ignored or even sometimes mishandled.

						Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098                  VE3TCP            RoboHack <>
Planix, Inc. <>          Secrets of the Weird <>