From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Sun Aug 18 12:55:58 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C6EC6DFF; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 12:55:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46BH9T2Ghqz4WD1; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 12:55:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883EE33DE4; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 08:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthias (unknown [178.114.243.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E69333DE3; Sun, 18 Aug 2019 08:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:56:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Mathieu Arnold cc: Josh Paetzel , Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: maintainer timeout (was: svn commit: r509115 - head/devel/py-googleapis-common-protos) In-Reply-To: <20190816183416.6qvjjmn3aeavzs73@atuin.in.mat.cc> Message-ID: References: <201908161811.x7GIBoiF029703@repo.freebsd.org> <3712ed4b-e373-4440-aae4-cc974f3389c2@www.fastmail.com> <20190816183416.6qvjjmn3aeavzs73@atuin.in.mat.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46BH9T2Ghqz4WD1 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of gerald@pfeifer.com designates 209.68.5.143 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gerald@pfeifer.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.49 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:hamza.pair.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[pfeifer.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; IP_SCORE(-2.23)[ip: (-8.00), ipnet: 209.68.0.0/18(-1.92), asn: 7859(-1.17), country: US(-0.05)]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.959,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[143.5.68.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7859, ipnet:209.68.0.0/18, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 12:55:58 -0000 On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Any patch can be applied after a two week timeout, and there is no > restriction on that patch, it can absolutely include a maintainer > change. This may be "legally" true, but I consider it gross and I am not convinced the majority of us are supportive. Unfortunately the finger service is no longer reachable from other machines, not even the ref* hosts, so you need to log in on freefall, but freefall:~> finger gerald : Plan: I won't be able to work much on FreeBSD during the following period: 2019-09-01 to 2019-09-28 If there is anything urgent and important, please go ahead and commit the minimal fix to any of my ports (without waiting for maintainer timeout). In general, if you find any code generation or other issue with GCC on FreeBSD, please file it upstream at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla and Cc: me at gerald@pfeifer.com. strikes me as a much better approach than "I'll be off" mails or relying on maintainer timeouts. Now it is not feasible in all cases (think medical issues or accidents) and I am not proposing to abolish maintainer timeouts, but something I'd like us to use over other means. And, in any case, before invoking maintainer timeout a direct e-mail would not seem unreasonable. Gerald