From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Tue Jun 25 10:03:56 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB1715C7372; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:03:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tijl@freebsd.org) Received: from mailrelay108.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay108.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.20.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "relay.skynet.be", Issuer "GlobalSign Organization Validation CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 348E983818; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:03:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tijl@freebsd.org) X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2AUAABg8BFd/1H1sVtlGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwQBAQEBAQsBghZHEmMgEhQUjDJfiXsBAYIONQGKCo4?= =?us-ascii?q?mgXsJAQEBPQEBhEACgm8mNAkOAQMBAQUBAQEBBW2KQ4VLAQU6HCMQCw4KCSU?= =?us-ascii?q?PSAYThTGmTYkkgRCBNAGLdIF/hCM+iiYEk2xblGJrCYIXk18nl06EEKIeOIF?= =?us-ascii?q?YTTAIgyeRBj0DMJAbAQE?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2AUAABg8BFd/1H1sVtlGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QGBUwQBAQEBAQsBghZHEmMgEhQUjDJfiXsBAYIONQGKCo4mgXsJAQEBPQEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?EACgm8mNAkOAQMBAQUBAQEBBW2KQ4VLAQU6HCMQCw4KCSUPSAYThTGmTYkkg?= =?us-ascii?q?RCBNAGLdIF/hCM+iiYEk2xblGJrCYIXk18nl06EEKIeOIFYTTAIgyeRBj0DM?= =?us-ascii?q?JAbAQE?= Received: from 81.245-177-91.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([91.177.245.81]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2019 12:03:46 +0200 Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org [127.0.0.1]) by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x5PA3jcK020161; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:03:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from tijl@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:03:45 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VMSzbA==?= Coosemans To: Kubilay Kocak Cc: Piotr Kubaj , "Tobias C. Berner" , 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: <20190625120345.0a2cc2eb@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <5878f408-2030-7f57-ec1e-5f45e814433f@FreeBSD.org> References: <201906241810.x5OIAu1h080487@repo.freebsd.org> <20190624194627.GB49520@ThinkPad-X200.g.anongoth.pl> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 348E983818 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.94 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.94)[-0.938,0]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:03:56 -0000 On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:45:33 +1000 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. But what purpose does it serve? Who's workflow depends on the flag and why? It all seems like pointless paperwork to me. When maintainer feedback is necessary seems obvious: if the last comment isn't his, his feedback is needed. Why do we have to set a flag for that?