Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:34:45 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r337389 - head/sysutils/hdup/files Message-ID: <52BC3075.1040003@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <E682A0572B6DA7A6CA834613@ogg.in.absolight.net> References: <201312242135.rBOLZsAX084602@svn.freebsd.org> <E682A0572B6DA7A6CA834613@ogg.in.absolight.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/26/2013 14:09, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Hi, > > +--On 24 décembre 2013 21:35:54 +0000 John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> > wrote: > | Log: > | sysutils/hdup: Unbreak on FreeBSD 10+ > | > | The breakage was caused by processing makefiles with bmake instead of > | the specified gmake. > | > | PR: ports/184617 > | Approved by: maintainer timeout > > Just splitting hairs a bit, here, but, your commit was not approved by > anything, to be exact, it should have read more like : > > ------ > sysutils/hdup: Unbreak on FreeBSD 10+ > > The breakage was caused by processing makefiles with bmake instead of the > specified gmake. > > maintainer timeout (here an optional number of days/months, if you like) > > PR: ports/184617 Does it matter? This is how I did all my commit messages during the probation period. Anyway, I interpret "timeout" as implicit permission so I always thought it did apply. > Also, I think I got most of your fix commits, but in the future, would you > mind asking about permission and then merging the commits that fix build to > the quarterly release by yourself ? > > You mostly only have to run : > /usr/ports/Tools/script/mfh 2014Q1 xxxx > > where xxxx is the revision number to merge :-) Now we have a philosophical problem. One thing I preferred with ports over pkgsrc is that ports didn't have quarterly branches, which I despise. Now, suddenly, it does. We (DragonFly) don't use quarterlies and if asked, I would have vehemently voted against having them. So at the risk of appearing unfriendly, why should I be expected to pay attention to these, which now multiplies my work by 200-400%? (depending on how many simultaneous quarterlies are to be supported). Plus, as you mention, these ports have maintainers that should be responsible for both the original commit and the quarterly maintenance (pending answer to my provoking question). Regards, John P.S. I see a post by bapt that sort of addresses this, but I don't want quarterly branch to be a success. :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52BC3075.1040003>