From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 21:45:56 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BAE16A4CE; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:45:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EF843D1F; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:45:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id C42841499E; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:45:55 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:45:55 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: <20050310191906.GG48850@toxic.magnesium.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: "David E. O'Brien" cc: Florent Thoumie cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/rdesktop pkg-plist X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:45:56 -0000 On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Adam Weinberger wrote: > My only argument here is that committers should not feel > like applying trivial fixes and routine maintenance to the ports > tree amounts to stepping on someone's toes. >From past traffic on the mailing lists, I believe that ports maintainers feel _exactly_ that that is what it amounts to. The whole idea of instituting the 2-week period for timeouts was to state 'here is a time period after which you don't get to claim that your toes were stepped on'. This does _not_ mean that a courtesy email to the maintainer is not called for in either case. Adding the comment 'maintainer timeout' or 'no response from maintainer' to these commits would have made clear what was happening. portmgr@ is interested in tracking maintainer timeouts. The FreeBSD development model only really works if people cooperate. To the extent that we have to have 'rules' to enforce common sense, I'll agree with you that it's too bad. But in this case the intention is not to create 'beauracracy', it's to prevent commit wars and people feeling that they are wasting their time by trying to send PRs which then later get ignored. And yes, there have been cases in the past where IMHO maintainers have given up after having their attempts to fix things overruled or ignored. We need all the (active) maintainers we can get, so this is A Bad Thing. mcl