Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:45:33 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@anongoth.pl> Cc: "Tobias C. Berner" <tcberner@gmail.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r505045 - head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard Message-ID: <5878f408-2030-7f57-ec1e-5f45e814433f@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20190625082911.GA63640@KGPE-D16> References: <201906241810.x5OIAu1h080487@repo.freebsd.org> <CAOshKtcPHHa4%2Bv2kL_aNKXzoXs1VkGw0nEAx3PkaArPJ6kCGzw@mail.gmail.com> <20190624194627.GB49520@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl> <CAOshKtegUmUYfdnDNmt9wuk1cSC_z_qpz8td597zC4y3Dup_-w@mail.gmail.com> <20190624202703.GA68048@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl> <8eab69dc-52bb-a187-6a30-565ae58f4512@FreeBSD.org> <20190625082911.GA63640@KGPE-D16>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25/06/2019 6:29 pm, Piotr Kubaj wrote: > To be honest, I fail to see the meaning of this flag. > > If it's not about approval, then what does this flag actually mean? Only > that "I acknowledge that there's a problem"? It means feedback is required. Feedback can take many forms. Not all bugs are patch submissions requiring (only) approval from a maintainer. Take for example, a bug report without a patch. maintainer-feedback? is set when issue is created. The maintainer comes back with 'i can reproduce the problem' and sets maintainer-feedback + (feedback provided). Triage sets need-patch keyword requesting a patch to fix the issue and sets maintainer-feedback? again, feedback this time being in the form of a patch. > Then maybe work-in-progress? As in, the maintainer is working on the fix. This doesn't cover feedback of forms that don't involve work/patches, the vast majority, and this is already covered by needs-patch keyword in any case. Again, if there's any way to improve the maintainer-feedback flag name to not mean 'approval' (as thats not what its for), I'd been keen to hear ideas. > On 19-06-25 11:59:32, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> On 25/06/2019 6:27 am, Piotr Kubaj wrote: >>> OK, for me maintainer-feedback entry means that the patch is accepted. >>> >>> When I wasn't a committer, I used to set maintainer-feedback to indicate >>> that I accept the patch. When I send PR's nowadays, some maintainers >>> also do that. >>> >>> On 19-06-24 21:54:56, Tobias C. Berner wrote: >>>> I set maintainer feedback, because I, as the maintainer gave you the >>>> feedback, that "I think this is wrong" :) >>>> If I liked that patch, I would have set the patch-approved flag on it. >>>> >>>> >>>> All that said, thanks for "fixing" it, but I still would prefer a real >>>> fix, >>>> that we can upstream rather than that. >>>> >>>> >>>> mfg Tobias >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 21:46, Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@anongoth.pl> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Oh, I didn't use "implicit". Doesn't maintainer-feedback + mean that >>>>> it's >>>>> accepted? >>>>> >>>>> On 19-06-24 21:34:09, Tobias C. Berner wrote: >>>>> >Moin moin >>>>> > >>>>> >Sorry, but I explicitely did not approve this :) so using implicit >>>>> on it, >>>>> >is a bit of a crappy move. >>>>> > >>>>> >mfg Tobias >>>>> > >>>>> >On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 20:11, Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Author: pkubaj >>>>> >> Date: Mon Jun 24 18:10:55 2019 >>>>> >> New Revision: 505045 >>>>> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/505045 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Log: >>>>> >> sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard: fix build with GCC-based >>>>> architectures >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Link with libinotify explicitly to fix linking on GCC >>>>> architectures. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> PR: 238702 >>>>> >> Approved by: tcberner (maintainer, mentor) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Modified: >>>>> >> head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Modified: head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ============================================================================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> --- head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile Mon Jun 24 >>>>> 18:07:12 2019 >>>>> >> (r505044) >>>>> >> +++ head/sysutils/plasma5-ksysguard/Makefile Mon Jun 24 >>>>> 18:10:55 2019 >>>>> >> (r505045) >>>>> >> @@ -23,5 +23,6 @@ OPTIONS_SUB= yes >>>>> >> >>>>> >> INOTIFY_DESC= Filesystem alteration notifications using >>>>> inotify >>>>> >> INOTIFY_LIB_DEPENDS= libinotify.so:devel/libinotify >>>>> >> +INOTIFY_LDFLAGS= -linotify >>>>> >> >>>>> >> .include <bsd.port.mk> >> >> >> What could we (bugmeister) name the flag so that it was clear that >> >> a) The flag is about needing feedback >> b) The flag has nothing to do with / does not mean approval? >> >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5878f408-2030-7f57-ec1e-5f45e814433f>