Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 20:45:24 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r226162 - head/share/mk Message-ID: <CADLo839LSvMaWQm3xSEz-JEKoGH-bnPuTgk9ZkgH8dfqyRCkjA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E90A5D4.9020006@FreeBSD.org> References: <201110081825.p98IP22D073560@svn.freebsd.org> <4E90A5D4.9020006@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 Oct 2011 20:35, "Doug Barton" <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 10/08/2011 11:25, Chris Rees wrote: > > Author: crees (ports committer) > > Date: Sat Oct 8 18:25:01 2011 > > New Revision: 226162 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/226162 > > > > Log: > > Revert unapproved commit to bsd.port.mk. > > This is completely unacceptable. We don't do "commit wars" in FreeBSD. > IF it's accurate that portmgr has custody on this file (as opposed to > ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk where they unquestionably do), and IF portmgr had a > problem with this commit, it's up to them to deal with it. The fact that > you don't think it's a good idea (for whatever reason) frankly isn't > relevant. > > > This would have had more discussion, but it was explicitly rejected at submission by portmgr: > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/070591.html > > I read that message as rejecting the idea of applying it to > ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk, and I think Jilles and Ed applied a very creative > solution to keeping things moving on HEAD without impacting the ports > tree itself. > This was subverting maintainer approval, whether inadvertent or not. It has nothing to do with whether I think it's a good idea or not, but please remember that this took place behind the back of the majority of the developers it affected, including me. Wherever the file is, and however creative the solution is, and however you read Erwin's message, the answer is clear; portmgr disapproves, please don't do it, because ports@ is where the fallout will happen. When I installed CURRENT I was surprised to find the problems impossible to reproduce, and that was because this fragment was put in an obscure place. We may not do revert wars, but I have to go through the proper process of getting stuff into bsd.port.mk, and so does everyone else. Please don't let's hold multiple conversations, feel free to bring my other email before developers@. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839LSvMaWQm3xSEz-JEKoGH-bnPuTgk9ZkgH8dfqyRCkjA>