From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 4 06:54:39 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E512C9EB; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8BFF52; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padfa1 with SMTP id fa1so24842821pad.3; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:54:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/6vth9+A3VZ+zK0NO2LTPGf661hajJRTgPkdLfoHJ78=; b=Ok5eg5N+mUBb7Y6uBhKCrtg+hz5Ix38JaEQwy28l605wuQwL36fH1eSJHqhqDkaH+v 4+a4Cyt1tv5hEOdXnOc4fev9NPAuQWDbSxd+uUiCg/cWkyrKCn8wAZX4hWKZLf+haE2s GZnesfz4kQDBDeR2WaZPtogSZkhIsIQe5rJA+oVuojxtY8PmwQ1eI3MXsmeVJkErHdTs Qv9jSjF2mtpnK+vfBKqDlFuLbyOLDRDD7tJDHkdFaOrsmTe7memM19A+lTUsnqG3VAqS sf4VYQW4Z7jnvelygBw9Ts5yuLJN0Ls8j8EJUWinpRhjFyhfVvl4nh8+eP+5kfF+Ybmx SLSA== X-Received: by 10.68.57.132 with SMTP id i4mr4195962pbq.59.1425452078201; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:54:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (ppp59-167-128-11.static.internode.on.net. [59.167.128.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mi9sm2984968pab.3.2015.03.03.22.54.35 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:54:37 -0800 (PST) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: <54F6AC24.9020208@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:54:28 +1100 From: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Hardie Subject: Re: Approving a patch References: <93878D88-4F1E-41EF-B99B-0B70119DDE0C@lafn.org> <54F6155C.3010405@FreeBSD.org> <54F6AA26.1080404@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54F6AA26.1080404@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "bugmeister@freebsd.org" , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 06:54:39 -0000 On 4/03/2015 5:45 PM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 4/03/2015 7:11 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 3/3/2015 1:53 PM, Doug Hardie wrote: >>> I am the maintainer for a port. I received a suggested patch for the port that is good. There used to be a link in the notification email to click on to approve the patch. With the new port system, that is gone (or at least I didn’t find it). I went through the porters manual and didn’t find anything on how to approve a patch. How do I do that? >>> >> >> In bugzilla there is a maintainer feedback dropdown. You can change it >> to a '+' and also leave a comment saying approved. >> >> > > Canonically and preferred: > > Set maintainer-approval flag to + *on the attachment/patch*. > > The maintainer-feedback flag is at the issue/bug scope, not the > attachment/patch scope. > > This of course requires the maintainer-approval flag was set to ? with > your email as the value first. > > Currently this is not automatic, but *should be* if there is an > attachment of type: patch in the issue. I'll create an issue for that > now for bugmeister@ to look into addressing. > > Only in cases where maintainer-approval is *not* already set to"?", is > using the maintainer-feedback flag + comment flow OK. > > Setting maintainer-feedback is ambiguous, and is used to prove > 'acknowledgement' of an issue or question. > > This is especially the case when there are multiple version of patches, > or patches from multiple contributors. In future it will be used to > derive "maintainer timeouts" to kick issues along, and open them up for > someone else to make a decision on. > > tldr; Set the maintainer-approval flag to + > > -- > Regards, > > Kubilay > Bugmeister > Further clarification: maintainer-feedback and maintainer-approval are independent and orthogonal. none, one or the other, or both can be used independently and to cumulative effect depending on the issues context and state with regard to what the issue needs to progress. -- Kubilay