new ports and maintainer

[Sean Farley]

Ryan Schmidt writes:

> On Aug 8, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> Ryan Schmidt writes:
>> 
>>> On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> 
>>>> port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
>>>> 
>>>> How would you produce that list if "nomaintainer" and "openmaintainer" were combined into a single value?
>>> 
>>> Thinking about it a bit more, I guess the answer is that it is a regular expression search so I could just anchor it to the beginning and end.
>>> 
>>> Ports I am the only maintainer of:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> $ port echo maintainer:^ryandesign$|wc -l
>>>     357
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ports I maintain with others or openly:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> $ port echo maintainer:ryandesign|wc -l
>>>     908
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
>> In general, these kinds of problems are a matter of implementation, not
>> design. For instance, we could augment this language to have finer grain
>> search operators:
>> 
>> $ port echo maintainer:(ryandesign and not openmaintainer)
>
> That can already be done:
>
>
> $ port echo maintainer:ryandesign and not maintainer:openmaintainer | wc -l
>      369
>
>
> Although that search takes a lot longer than it really should.
>
> But the issue at hand was not finding maintained ports without openmaintainer; the issue was differentiating maintained-but-open ports from unmaintained ports in a hypothetical future where we no longer use separate terms, and I used my own handle as an example. But as I said using a double-anchored regular expression would work.
>
> In fact I've proposed combining openmaintainer and nomaintainer before. But would this actually get us anything useful?

For one, it would save the manual work of reminding devs that forget.
For another, it would be consolidate some of the work that it takes to
remind people on Trac.

But really, it's just about cleaning up code and streamlining some of
this review process for the MacPorts community.