Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:26:26 +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: <46c4d8ef-b03b-5b55-20b7-39bb9ef1126c@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20190625091312.GB63640@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> <5878f408-2030-7f57-ec1e-5f45e814433f@FreeBSD.org> <20190625091312.GB63640@KGPE-D16>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25/06/2019 7:13 pm, Piotr Kubaj wrote: > OK then, I get the meaning of this flag now. > > Still, it would be good if you could post some FAQ on bugzilla so that > others know too :) One can mouseover the flag names to get a description of its use, and what the various states (+,-, etc) mean. We could probably improve discoverability of these help texts by adding some custom CSS > On 19-06-25 18:45:33, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> 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? >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46c4d8ef-b03b-5b55-20b7-39bb9ef1126c>