From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 21 07:11:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5461065681 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:11:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from raven.customer.vol.cz (raven.customer.vol.cz [195.250.144.108]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5098FC1D for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:11:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [89.24.253.103] (89-24-253-103.i4g.tmcz.cz [89.24.253.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by raven.customer.vol.cz (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9L6hvNr088799; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:44:00 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <48FD7A37.6000901@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:44:07 +0200 From: Pav Lucistnik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxim Sobolev References: <200810201626.m9KGQFZx016617@repoman.freebsd.org> <48FCBBC5.4070603@FreeBSD.org> <20081020174908.GA9181@icarus.home.lan> <48FCCAB5.5020208@FreeBSD.org> <48FCCC88.6090009@FreeBSD.org> <20081020213840.GA13440@icarus.home.lan> <48FD2E39.4000603@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <48FD2E39.4000603@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.845 () AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_PBL,RDNS_DYNAMIC X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 195.250.144.108 X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: raven.customer.vol.cz; Sender-ip: 89.24.253.103; Sender-helo: [89.24.253.103]; ) 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-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:11:12 -0000 Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> The user and I were discussing, privately, scheduler-related things, and >> the PR was mentioned. I told him that ports maintainers are allowed up >> to 2 weeks to respond, after which other committers can take over if >> need be. After 2 weeks had passed, the user provided me the patch (the >> original PR mail snipped his attachment), and I committed it. > > I still don't see any place where it says that the assigned PR with no > activity for more than 2 weeks on it should be considered as an approval > request. Just opening PR is not enough IMHO, it's usually task of the > requester to contact maintainer and seek for explicit approval if he > wants faster turnaround. Maxim, you are out of touch with the common practice here as of lately. Indeed, we have been applying two-week timeouts on PRs assigned to committers, for a long time now. Generally, it works well. Obviously there are exceptions... Pav