From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 21 01:15:02 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09C91065679; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:15:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sippysoft.com (gk1.360sip.com [72.236.70.240]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAC38FC08; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:15:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.1.91] (S010600132053396e.vc.shawcable.net [24.87.32.150] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sippysoft.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9L1ExVX059124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <48FD2D0C.5040101@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:14:52 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Boris Samorodov References: <200810201626.m9KGQFZx016617@repoman.freebsd.org> <48FCBBC5.4070603@FreeBSD.org> <20081020174908.GA9181@icarus.home.lan> <48FCCAB5.5020208@FreeBSD.org> <48FCCC88.6090009@FreeBSD.org> <80995414@ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <80995414@ipt.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Jeremy Chadwick , wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile ports/net/asterisk/files patch-main-utils.c patch-main::utils.c X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:15:03 -0000 Boris Samorodov wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:23:04 -0700 Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> Maxim Sobolev wrote: >>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:11:33AM -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >>>>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >>>>>> koitsu 2008-10-20 16:26:15 UTC >>>>>> >>>>>> FreeBSD ports repository >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified files: >>>>>> net/asterisk Makefile Added files: >>>>>> net/asterisk/files patch-main-utils.c Removed files: >>>>>> net/asterisk/files patch-main::utils.c Log: >>>>>> - Follow present-day naming scheme of files/ patches >>>>>> - Increase PORTREVISION >>>>> Jeremy, >>>>> >>>>> If you have not noticed there is an active maintainer for this >>>>> port. I would appreciate if you run all your changes through >>>>> him. This patch should have been submitted to the Digium bug >>>>> tracking system. >>>> ports/127829 was filed over 2 weeks ago with no response. The reporter >>>> spoke to me privately (since we were discussing scheduler stuff) and >>>> mentioned this PR. I told him if you did not respond within 2 weeks >>>> (maintainer timeout), that I would commit the fix -- he felt it was very >>>> urgent to get this done promptly. >>> The issue is hardly a critical one and there is no such thing as >>> "automatic 2 weeks timeout". > >> ..."automatic 2 weeks timeout on PRs", I mean. > >> If you have contacted me privately you would have probably learned >> that I am working on update to the port and planning on including this >> change into it. > > I'm not sure what do you mean by "automatic" but those links may give > you requested information about 2 weeks timeout on PRs: > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintainer.html > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/contributing-ports/maintain-port.html Changes to the port will be sent to the maintainer of a port for a review and an approval before being committed. If the maintainer does not respond to an update request after two weeks (excluding major public holidays), then that is considered a maintainer timeout, and the update may be made without explicit maintainer approval. Wait At some stage a committer will deal with your PR. It may take minutes, or it may take weeks - so please be patient. Nothing here says 2 weeks timeout somehow should apply to assigned PRs, in fact quite on contrary. In other words open and assigned PR is not equivalent of request of approval IMHO. Imagine somebody just going to the PR database and starting commit everything that has been in queue for more than 2 weeks. I bet it will piss lot of people off. -Maxim