From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 19 19:23:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ED6913C for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:23:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ABB21B7 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:23:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WQM5s-000JSc-K1; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:24:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:24:04 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger To: "Dr. Peter Voigt" Subject: Re: Update of quazip-0.5.1 to quazip-0.6.2 fails Message-ID: <20140319192404.GQ53062@home.opsec.eu> References: <20140319140512.6035e0d5@tiger2008.drpetervoigt.private> <20140319133614.GO53062@home.opsec.eu> <20140319174857.40e83d09@tiger2008.drpetervoigt.private> <20140319170943.GP53062@home.opsec.eu> <20140319200314.0eb3df25@tiger2008.drpetervoigt.private> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140319200314.0eb3df25@tiger2008.drpetervoigt.private> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:23:36 -0000 Hi! > > In that special case > > > > http://www.freshports.org/archivers/quazip/ > > > > shows that the update was done after the maintainer failed to approve > > the update. So in this particular case informing him might be > > superfluous. > Well, I am obviously not much trained in reading the commit history. I > would conclude from the last entry "17 Mar 2014 15:54:23" and "Approved > by: maintainer timeout (nivit, >4 weeks)" that the maintainer did not > approve the commit and thus the commit remained untested. The committer probably did test it, but probably had no previous quazip installation to run into the problem. > Can one > conclude from this that the maintainer is aware of problems without > reporting them? No -- this meant that someone told the maintainer to check the PR, but he failed to react. Why he failed to react (probably overload 8-} does not allow one to draw conclusions on his consent/dissent or anything else 8-} > I cannot read that the maintainer "failed to approve". Correct, the 'maintainer timeout' only says: He had time to react and failed to react. > Or can I assume for sure every port maintainer has subscribed to > this mailing list? You can't assume that. So, if you see problems, a mail directly to the maintainer is one way, submitting a PR is another way to handle it. This list is yet another way to get feedback on the issue. The best way it to submit a PR, because then the state of the problem can be tracked. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 6 years to go !