Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:04:12 +0100
From:      John Marino <dragonflybsd@marino.st>
To:        =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philippe_Aud=E9oud?= <jadawin@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan <rene@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d
Message-ID:  <529CA16C.2060000@marino.st>
In-Reply-To: <20131202145224.GH71618@tuxaco.net>
References:  <201311301102.rAUB2I21004889@svn.freebsd.org> <20131202093409.GA71618@tuxaco.net> <529C5F05.6020706@marino.st> <20131202104324.GB71618@tuxaco.net> <529C689B.9050902@marino.st> <20131202131244.GC71618@tuxaco.net> <529C8C1F.7050802@marino.st> <20131202134921.GD71618@tuxaco.net> <529C91F2.6020004@marino.st> <20131202145224.GH71618@tuxaco.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/2/2013 15:52, Philippe Audéoud wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote:
>>
>> You are misrepresenting me.  I follow the rules, but they are crappy
>> rules so I'm complaining about them.  Rene did not break any rules that
>> I am aware of.  (You conveniently did not show me where this "rule" is
>> documented, nor why you think port maintenance privilege extends past
>> the expire deadline).

> 
> 4. Respect existing maintainers if listed.
> 
> Many parts of FreeBSD are not "owned" in the sense that any specific
> individual will jump up and yell if you commit a change to "their" area,
> but it still pays to check first. One convention we use is to put a
> maintainer line in the Makefile for any package or subtree which is
> being actively maintained by one or more people; see
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/policies.html
> for documentation on this. Where sections of code have several
> maintainers, commits to affected areas by one maintainer need to be
> reviewed by at least one other maintainer. In cases where the
> "maintainer-ship" of something is not clear, you can also look at the
> repository logs for the file(s) in question and see if someone has been
> working recently or predominantly in that area.
> 
> Other areas of FreeBSD fall under the control of someone who manages an
> overall category of FreeBSD evolution, such as internationalization or
> networking. See http://www.FreeBSD.org/administration.html for more
> information on this.
> 
> from :
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/rules.html
> 


1. Clearly it does not address port deletion specifically.
2. I openly questioned whether or not the MAINTAINER line expired with
the port.  I believe it should.  After the expiry date, it should be
treated as if MAINTAINER=ports@freebsd.org (meaning anybody at all can
delete it if they feel like it.)
3. This is the clause that needs updating.  It gives too much power to
the listed MAINTAINER.  It could and should allow others to fix the port
if it restores the port to how the maintainer intended.  People are
abusing this clause and the result is that ports that could be fixed
correctly on the spot are not fixed in a timely fashion (sometimes
delaying weeks or months or perhaps never getting fixed).

Some of this "power" needs to be clawed back.  I will fully support any
maintainer who is angry at another committer than "fixes" their port
incorrectly though.  I think the benefits of allowing others to fix
ports-with-listed-maintainers outweighs the negatives by a lot.

John



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?529CA16C.2060000>