From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Sun Apr 2 01:52:45 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 2A297D1E5CB; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 01:52:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junovitch@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08AA2EC1; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 01:52:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junovitch@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA343CD3; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 01:52:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junovitch@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 21:52:39 -0400 From: Jason Unovitch To: Cy Schubert Cc: Mathieu Arnold , Jan Beich , 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> References: <201704012304.v31N4OID037131@slippy.cwsent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <201704012304.v31N4OID037131@slippy.cwsent.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) 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 01:52:45 -0000 On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message , Mathieu Arnold > writes > : > > Le 01/04/2017 à 23:58, Jan Beich a écrit : > > > Mathieu Arnold 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 Vejnovič > > >>> 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.