From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Jun 28 09:17:13 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@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 B9C8EB73A88 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:17:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4662F2109 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:17:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baptiste.daroussin@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id a66so17907427wme.0 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:17:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=q6OYVeFKFY9EbprYqzFGG1Xx8K+aWaVrR8IpMHKdgJs=; b=XMVULyBKqcqalFzYKw/PyvsNtmK/mdXv+vjYbjRPcQeCjRWX6pew53vmvVJw+tg0db KCsvITRFyKq2iedqmF6PvYoyqF1aeEgjJZOtn4KsnU+zzCh8LlcK0yTTkvXwSdmucc8P 0LbuGjG6ELfYKK0WJ6gq7dsLoVlTPqrSx0HndR+sOqaKb8pGrq/Haszoy9xyRr8MYTBt E6z5CggsxNTw93Q+png8ywn51zB3vCjHSl7dWMSn1avxNdObYgzUxhDl3DhmYTIKoVmf bjXuefItuO0g00AMFce1iJAZdy1V0UdhPMT6dItU67yB3jXGELgxgmorLJJS0l5Mib/B f+Uw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=q6OYVeFKFY9EbprYqzFGG1Xx8K+aWaVrR8IpMHKdgJs=; b=iMu8zOE2FIQRyMvV93tN3rceGBod7fXaOLNbzHdn18eyriX+CZ8pwUYFvwg49thM9U zpOhiybSujnWTlJRWM0pLEHBEPBely1nrngtmZWKD9+lHJCF5wPvQU11hZXoGoJyNA0t QNh+rcHmAnilpIRmPY+2W/+afi4dYiTLFJwfGCopS5YabXr7sDuEDMwkNAnWadTzfN2t 0pbUL2jaZCY3tkWpjYESlbj8suf1Z1PiWwzaekcji4tMNFiQmrUBVVVHCA2zwCIHymlY sDKvlY8aY9chxxk0Dgcmg0z9rDT6quw8E8mzGwEy1vnHfPP3iTQ/LJkBh4Rd27su7kPh pw/g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLLIPU8J2i13haxQSI3gzAeUeep4DPFbXarPpV3EeEyB2Q/6yl/ky+ZLI78Tnsl+Q== X-Received: by 10.194.168.225 with SMTP id zz1mr2222752wjb.114.1467105431663; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivaldir.etoilebsd.net ([2001:41d0:8:db4c::1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h8sm5795865wjg.9.2016.06.28.02.17.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:17:10 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Kevin Golding Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: blanket portmgr approval vs. non-fixing changes Message-ID: <20160628091709.pbvq7lekss2ql2en@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <201606272021.u5RKLVhQ057899@slippy.cwsent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="umjymritqrrpj45u" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1-neo (2016-06-11) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:17:13 -0000 --umjymritqrrpj45u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 09:12:46AM +0100, Kevin Golding wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:21:31 +0100, Cy Schubert > wrote: >=20 > > In message <57716D89.1050108@sorbs.net>, Michelle Sullivan writes: >=20 > > > Don't forget that many people see their name/email in the maintainer > > > line as being responsible for the port.. so someone goes makes blanket > > > changes which actually breaks stuff.. that reflects on the person in = the > > > Maintainer line - whether you want it to do so or not, whether you > > > believe it or not.. > >=20 > > I think it's more than the maintainer perceives that they're responsibl= e. > > Getting that email from freebsd-pkg-fallout I think there was and maybe > > still is a general impression that is had. I for one take the attitude, > > you > > break it, you fix it and I don't hesitate to email any committer who > > made a > > blanket change that broke something. It's only fair because fixing > > breakage > > caused by others also takes away from other productive work and project= s, > > as some of us do have time constraints and time pressure due to other > > commitments. >=20 > I think it goes beyond just breakages though. Recently I had a couple of > ports to update so I made sure my tree was current first thing in the > morning, I went through and updated. Then I ran all the build logs etc. > submitted my patches to bugzilla - and about the same time someone did a > blanket update of RUN_DEPENDS in my ports. Including a PORTREVISION bump. > It's easy to argue that's a very trivial change that doesn't needs > maintainer involvement, but it also impacted my day. >=20 > So I updated my tree again and did the whole process again which was > inconvenient, but I also found myself cringing at any users of the port > perhaps updating on the PORTREVISION and then a couple of days later when= my > more complete update was committed having to do it again. I thought it > looked bad as I was obsoleting the patches and build logs I submitted a > couple of hours earlier too. >=20 > Had I known about the blanket update I could've rolled that into my updat= es > or something, but it was just suddenly there. There was no public warning= of > that change coming (and I did search the relevant lists just to make sure= I > hadn't missed something). Luckily my ports are mostly trivial so the actu= al > impact was fairly low, but it still annoyed me and made me feel that it m= ade > me look bad. It still took extra time to do these simple updates, especia= lly > once I started wondering what I'd missed to not catch this beforehand. I > felt rather lucky that I'm quite a low volume maintainer in that regard > because it could've easily sucked up a lot more of my time. >=20 > On the flipside blanket updates will logically come from people who give = far > more time to this stuff than me. Will they be happy with having to jump > through hoops for the likes of me? If I'm unhappy about the extra time th= is > caused me maybe I'm being unfair in asking them to spend time checking for > pending updates before doing something. Maybe I just need to suck it up a= nd > let the big players do their thing. >=20 What you are asking is part of the blanket in particular when changing thin= gs in individual ports, we expect committers to have a look at pending PR (yes I = know I have been guilty of individual port change without sometime checking about pending PR which was wrong from my side) For sweeping changes this is a bit different as when a change touches a lar= ge portion of the tree we can not expect the committer to have a look at each individual ports. Best regards, Bapt --umjymritqrrpj45u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXckCLAAoJEGOJi9zxtz5aNUYP/2bw0SP65gJ0tECLGACygQ6t RxSN2DGGokxFczPUYKJGnBDlT2kKAHzml7e0C6rysqfMc69FAjhHJRDIuaa+vJFr 80q9DtHKPQIqkbRiSdp+RJI2s6ICD5S4AJArEsfMBhJX4gTtJ+IbJDbq1Zc6nDBl BYooRbxl8rLISoz9cFNgPdcQY82+RHx9GQrhLrojPTH/QPzqiIO0AwfVwbWdYisN E70D0W5CmqB1miJ/bHmLxepSfvE/ihGPJwkZy0cSGIa4cHlmVmHibjxG8NckEIOY lckzYuWstubiwkJoJFcosu4Z0XnUA52GGj+qSsF7yzq5XSmL2KAVKI3GxcFG1xII zJRyxEmdao6gq2Q0Lk7wn/vP0JNecYHNgyDrSQvqcRKjgaLiv8Mj2CIClyV6KSS8 lCCloxR3nroAZsWupHYuffkM+qFhzlsF9jrQfjWyHpMjAnmIbeowgzfLtqsvKqxL dSX/C//8q2xNJWcvjuPUaJlqQTFjZEOiuNt8U0p9yxDbSWZ1HxflAKxDOeicpZVW ajSpClOcFnJX7fXwK0uGTY4eZHI/02qP75qs+LyseTSYXwm8xBhCDtnuuAuqnA6c CS+56CUd7brOhMGS5/Y2HKn+5IMckekwvxMEJ25EqZbz7Ka9EkVxlGkqeh7VQJ5z lkiVrgf4aufd+9zptbaL =yw7O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --umjymritqrrpj45u--