From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Tue Jan 26 18:23:12 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB58A46465; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:23:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6391D2F; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:23:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 196381C5B; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:23:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:23:12 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Jason Helfman Cc: Mathieu Arnold , "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" , Kurt Jaeger , "ports-committers@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: svn commit: r407237 - head/mail/imaputils Message-ID: <20160126182312.GA54534@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601251910.u0PJAdeU003331@repo.freebsd.org> <20160126141038.GA46193@FreeBSD.org> <4C5F6D463ACD91B52D4AC5AF@ogg.in.absolight.net> <20160126153932.GC46193@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:23:12 -0000 On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:08:26AM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Right, there are few possible combinations like that; usually I try to > > give attribution in a way that makes the most sense if read naturally > > (top to bottom). For example, for the actuall patch submitted by foo, > > with a related PR (submitted by someone else) it's probably better to > > put "Submitted by[: foo]" line first, and PR line after. [...] > > I did put a PR in for this issue, which could possibly be leveraged and > clear the commit confusion. The PR adds a "Reported by" to the FreeBSD > template. I don't see the need to put a reference to PR on a follow-up commit that just had cleaned things up a bit (avoid needless assignment in this case). > These are problem reports, and I think it is appropriate to have that > someone reported a problem report. Correct, but this is irrelevant to the commit in question (r407237). > If there is a submission associated with the report, it then is very > clear that it was reported by one person, and another individual > submitted a fix. One of the long-standing traditions of FreeBSD is that we kindly ask folks not just report the problem ("hey, port foo/bar needs an update!") but also provide a patch (that is, submission). Hence in general it is *not* clear that PR was reported by one person, and another individual submitted a fix: we simply do not (rightfully) encourage this type of workflow, we ask for patches. :-) > I put this in awhile ago, and there was some discussion about it, however > the PR has not yet been committed at this point. Whether or not this is a > good solution, or there is something better, is another matter entirely. Sorry, I don't think I quite understand this paragraph (particularly, which PR?). ./danfe