Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 21:52:39 -0400 From: Jason Unovitch <junovitch@FreeBSD.org> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc>, Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r416439 - head/sysutils/fusefs-ntfs Message-ID: <20170402015239.GA10551@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201704012304.v31N4OID037131@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <mat@mat.cc> <d4a6997a-b5ae-f368-5843-cb0f7596c223@mat.cc> <201704012304.v31N4OID037131@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <d4a6997a-b5ae-f368-5843-cb0f7596c223@mat.cc>, Mathieu Arnold > writes > : > > Le 01/04/2017 à 23:58, Jan Beich a écrit : > > > Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> writes: > > > > > >> Le 01/04/2017 à 22:20, Cy Schubert a écrit : > > >> > > >>> In message <201606052250.u55Mo44E016592@repo.freebsd.org>, Jason Unovitch > > > > >>> write > > >>> s: > > >>>> Author: junovitch > > >>>> Date: Sun Jun 5 22:50:04 2016 > > >>>> New Revision: 416439 > > >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/416439 > > >>>> > > >>>> Log: > > >>>> sysutils/fusefs-ntfs: pass MAINTAINER to submitter > > >>>> > > >>>> PR: 209976 > > >>>> Submitted by: DuÅ¡an VejnoviÄ <freebsd@dussan.org> > > >>> 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 w > > as > > >>> 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. > > > Where is this policy documented? I'm sure I've made the same mistake > > > more than once in the past. > > > > I'm not sure it penciled down, we try to not commit only maintainer > > changes, but require patches that actually update the port. > > I recall it being discussed on the mailing lists a number of times. It > probably should be written down somewhere. (Kind of like at $JOB where > standards are agreed upon but not written down in the ops guide or on > scarepoint. With the submission already in I feel it's a bit discouraging to get a PR rejected because it's "only" the one change to pass on MAINTAINER. Perhaps it's a bit optimistic to hope one would take MAINTAINER always intending to take care of a port but it's a reasonable enough request IMO to grant it once they do.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170402015239.GA10551>