From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 18 06:44:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB4AA106564A; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:44:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8648FC0C; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.225] (atoulouse-256-1-130-170.w90-45.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.45.57.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67D943BA3; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:44:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <50065B3B.8040404@marino.st> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:44:11 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <50017C97.3050200@filez.com> <20120714192119.GA61563@vniz.net> <5001CB97.6070205@filez.com> <50054F6E.9040002@filez.com> <50055293.3010002@FreeBSD.org> <20120717213902.GB21825@lonesome.com> <5005E2AE.3040806@marino.st> <20120717224302.GA26742@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20120717224302.GA26742@lonesome.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Michael Scheidell , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:44:20 -0000 On 7/18/2012 00:43, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote: >> Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized >> quality contributor with history) just got committed as a passthrough? > > This has been explored on the mailing lists before, however, we don't > technically have a way to do either of the following: > > - let people commit to "just some" ports > - have any patches be autocommitted > > No one has ever tackled the former problem. The latter problem just > seems to me to open up ways for people to abuse the system. It makes > me nervous. Well, between the two I would suggest a combination of "let people autocommit patches to "just some" ports". Reasons - Don't have to hassle with the logistics of giving a limited commit bit, risk getting the permissions wrong, and removing it after the maintainer retires. You'd have to create an automatic system that could verify the patches apply cleanly (or maybe just accept file replacements), and that the files came from maintainer. A public/private key system should do that. All you'd need to do is is map keys to ports and not accept any files outside of the allowed area. Removing that mapping is a lot easier than tweaking commit privileges. Yes, somebody would have to set that up but it would pay big dividend I think. John