Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:12:44 +0100 From: Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Aud=E9oud?= <jadawin@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan <rene@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d Message-ID: <20131202131244.GC71618@tuxaco.net> In-Reply-To: <529C689B.9050902@marino.st> References: <201311301102.rAUB2I21004889@svn.freebsd.org> <20131202093409.GA71618@tuxaco.net> <529C5F05.6020706@marino.st> <20131202104324.GB71618@tuxaco.net> <529C689B.9050902@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote: > On 12/2/2013 11:43, Philippe Aud=E9oud wrote: > > I don't do a big deal but I like the idea to respect others job. If i > > was known to not update my ports when needed, I can understand that > > someone is doing my job. >=20 > Well, actually you did make a big deal about it, but let's talk about > the other thing. >=20 Excuse me to tell my opinion! I just asked for an explanation and I didn't reproach anything. But ok, if you want I'm making a big deal with it. > > When i take the maintainership of a port, I interpret it as "I'm taking > > care of this port and thanks to let me know if you want to do something > > with". > > If I follow your idea, ok, let's commit on all maintainer's port without > > approval. Then, the idea of maintainer is useless. >=20 > Let me be clear: If the change is a patch to make it work better, or > improve the functionality, address options, or basically any change to > what the maintainer *intended* then of course it needs the permission of > the maintainer. >=20 > However, if it's a missing dependency, or a typographical error, or > something really REALLY obviously and it's *broken* because of it, then > no, I don't think those cases should require writing a PR and > potentially waiting 2 weeks for it to time out. The number of > non-responsive maintainers vastly outnumbers those that respond quickly > and that includes those with @freebsd.org addresses. >=20 Agree but it's not our case. It's not a big issue neither a broken change. > > So, again, i don't do a big deal but as an active maintainer, I don't > > like someone else is doing my job whitout asking. >=20 > Port deletion isn't necessarily "your job". The vast majority of ports > are deleted by someone other than the maintainer. >=20 Deleting a port *I maintain* is my job as to mark it deprecated. > I really hope portmgr@ starts addressing cases where other maintainers > can help with obvious breakage. Obviously it needs to be written and > defined clearly so that we have something to point to when the listed > maintainer gets touchy about it (which they should not be). >=20 > Now, I will say that if one dares to touch a port maintained by another, > the change he or she makes had better be correct! Making the wrong > change to someone else's port is justification for them getting upset. >=20 Then, you can send a PR and wait for a time-out. Now, to close this debate: I don't care that rene@ deleted this port, I just think that we (as committer) don't have full right on all ports. You want a change (minor or major) for a port that you don't maintain and not in ports@, you have to send a pr except for changes describe in committer guide. Or maybe you can send an email, communication doesn't cost but it's good to use it. Ok, now, can we please stop this debate and work on freebsd? --=20 Philippe Aud=E9oud
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131202131244.GC71618>