Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:47:33 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com>, Jason Unovitch <junovitch@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r416439 - head/sysutils/fusefs-ntfs Message-ID: <20170402014733.GA28892@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <02a45cdf-904b-1306-5d93-4dcc82f39cea@mat.cc> References: <201704012020.v31KKM24033490@slippy.cwsent.com> <02a45cdf-904b-1306-5d93-4dcc82f39cea@mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:40:24PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > Is there a reason we grant maintainer on a simple maintainer request? It > > used to be that a MAINTAINER was given maintainership only when a patch was > > submitted not a patch to just change MAINTAINER. Has this policy changed? > > The policy has not changed, those commits should not happen, but, well, > they do. I've gone back and forth on my ideas on this policy. With so many gazillion ports@ ports, I wonder if we had the barrier too high before. OTOH we're probably only talking about a dozen ports out of 4000+ so maybe it's not really the problem we need to fix :-) I don't know. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170402014733.GA28892>