Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:47:07 -0800 From: Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: Jason Helfman <jgh@freebsd.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r407237 - head/mail/imaputils Message-ID: <CAMuy=%2BjB2QtOsY5Y8-N6hZbqU6uqtXKWB2JNpnb_ugTB9Jpwmw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20160126182312.GA54534@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601251910.u0PJAdeU003331@repo.freebsd.org> <20160126141038.GA46193@FreeBSD.org> <4C5F6D463ACD91B52D4AC5AF@ogg.in.absolight.net> <20160126153932.GC46193@FreeBSD.org> <CAMuy=%2BgjxtuEviVKavXhp6TqASn3010d88S0YNJSA2E15_-gbw@mail.gmail.com> <20160126182312.GA54534@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>
wrote:
> 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
>
>
I believe there was a misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting a follow-up
commit.
I understand that we ask for a patch, but there are many that are simply
reported,
and someone else will fix it. This was the reasoning behind submitting this
PR.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195252
-jgh
--
Jason Helfman | FreeBSD Committer
jgh@FreeBSD.org | http://people.freebsd.org/~jgh | The Power to Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMuy=%2BjB2QtOsY5Y8-N6hZbqU6uqtXKWB2JNpnb_ugTB9Jpwmw>