Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:51:44 +0000 From: Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> To: hackers@freebsd.org, pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: more pkgbase reviewers required Message-ID: <acP2gACAUOsJCmyM@amaryllis.le-fay.org> In-Reply-To: <3536ba2d-ada0-4ebe-8e20-da94c9bc6fea@nomadlogic.org> References: <acPbI7THuJb5h4pp@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <3536ba2d-ada0-4ebe-8e20-da94c9bc6fea@nomadlogic.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] Pete Wright wrote in <3536ba2d-ada0-4ebe-8e20-da94c9bc6fea@nomadlogic.org>: > On 3/25/26 05:54, Lexi Winter wrote: > > at this point, it's extremely difficult to get any pkgbase-related > > changes reviewed in Phabricator, which is an issue since we're now > > pushing pkgbase as the default method for installing the system. > > [...] > > do you need to have a commit bit to be a useful reviewer. no. although... i will say i tend to give more attention to reviews from other committers. but it's not a requirement to be a committer to review a change, and it's very helpful to get feedback from testing (e.g., "this change broke my system!"), or to know that a particular change might break existing deployments, for example. but when considering whether to land a change, i only look at reviews from committers. i.e., i might *not* land a change if non-committers have objections, but i will not land a change if the only reviews are from non-committers. does that make sense? basically what i'm saying is, yes, it's useful to get feedback on changes from people who aren't committers, but we still need committers to actually land changes. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCacP2fAAKCRD1nT63mIK/ YOSeAPwJUIeL7VSOqt93vqyChnPhik8Cmitz8Lzz6HxICiNLpgEA/on8Pit4w+TW 2pGYhIHGXZcTjf9M9u0eTzuT1mnZDwE= =C+dO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?acP2gACAUOsJCmyM>