Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:13:54 -0700 From: Pete Wright <pete@nomadlogic.org> To: Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, pkgbase@freebsd.org Subject: Re: more pkgbase reviewers required Message-ID: <7B32EC96-7D56-41B1-940F-DE3C84DE08E9@nomadlogic.org> In-Reply-To: <acP2gACAUOsJCmyM@amaryllis.le-fay.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 25, 2026, at 7:52 AM, Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Pete Wright wrote in <3536ba2d-ada0-4ebe-8e20-da94c9bc6fea@nomadlogic.org>: >>> On 3/25/26 05:54, Lexi Winter wrote: >>> at this point, it's extremely difficult to get any pkgbase-related >>> changes reviewed in Phabricator, which is an issue since we're now >>> pushing pkgbase as the default method for installing the system. >>> [...] >> >> do you need to have a commit bit to be a useful reviewer. > > no. although... i will say i tend to give more attention to reviews > from other committers. but it's not a requirement to be a committer > to review a change, and it's very helpful to get feedback from testing > (e.g., "this change broke my system!"), or to know that a particular > change might break existing deployments, for example. > > but when considering whether to land a change, i only look at reviews > from committers. i.e., i might *not* land a change if non-committers > have objections, but i will not land a change if the only reviews are > from non-committers. > > does that make sense? basically what i'm saying is, yes, it's useful > to get feedback on changes from people who aren't committers, but we > still need committers to actually land changes. > <signature.asc> Understood - I’ll let yall with commit bits do your thing and get out of the way since it sounds like it’ll just be noise. -Petehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7B32EC96-7D56-41B1-940F-DE3C84DE08E9>