From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Sun Apr 2 01:47:36 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0E1D1E427; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 01:47:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [192.108.105.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.soaustin.net", Issuer "StartCom Class 2 IV Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6868B33; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 01:47:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from lonesome.com (bones.soaustin.net [192.108.105.22]) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F77B30E; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:47:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:47:33 -0500 From: Mark Linimon To: Mathieu Arnold Cc: Cy Schubert , Jason Unovitch , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r416439 - head/sysutils/fusefs-ntfs Message-ID: <20170402014733.GA28892@lonesome.com> References: <201704012020.v31KKM24033490@slippy.cwsent.com> <02a45cdf-904b-1306-5d93-4dcc82f39cea@mat.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02a45cdf-904b-1306-5d93-4dcc82f39cea@mat.cc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 01:47:37 -0000 On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 11:40:24PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > Is there a reason we grant maintainer on a simple maintainer request? It > > used to be that a MAINTAINER was given maintainership only when a patch was > > submitted not a patch to just change MAINTAINER. Has this policy changed? > > The policy has not changed, those commits should not happen, but, well, > they do. I've gone back and forth on my ideas on this policy. With so many gazillion ports@ ports, I wonder if we had the barrier too high before. OTOH we're probably only talking about a dozen ports out of 4000+ so maybe it's not really the problem we need to fix :-) I don't know. mcl