Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:00:34 -0800 From: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, "bugmeister@freebsd.org" <bugmeister@FreeBSD.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Approving a patch Message-ID: <2A646BF8-F061-4C8D-ACD3-A08DBF1EF5F0@lafn.org> In-Reply-To: <54F6AA26.1080404@FreeBSD.org> References: <93878D88-4F1E-41EF-B99B-0B70119DDE0C@lafn.org> <54F6155C.3010405@FreeBSD.org> <54F6AA26.1080404@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 3 March 2015, at 22:45, Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 >=20 > Canonically and preferred: >=20 > Set maintainer-approval flag to + *on the attachment/patch*. >=20 > The maintainer-feedback flag is at the issue/bug scope, not the > attachment/patch scope. >=20 > This of course requires the maintainer-approval flag was set to ? with > your email as the value first. >=20 > Currently this is not automatic, but *should be* if there is an > attachment of type: patch in the issue. I'll create an issue for that > now for bugmeister@ to look into addressing. >=20 > Only in cases where maintainer-approval is *not* already set to"?", is > using the maintainer-feedback flag + comment flow OK. >=20 > Setting maintainer-feedback is ambiguous, and is used to prove > 'acknowledgement' of an issue or question. >=20 > This is especially the case when there are multiple version of = patches, > or patches from multiple contributors. In future it will be used to > derive "maintainer timeouts" to kick issues along, and open them up = for > someone else to make a decision on. >=20 > tldr; Set the maintainer-approval flag to + >=20 Thanks to all who replied. I found and set the maintainer-feedback flag = at the issue/bug scope. I couldn=E2=80=99t find any similar flag at the = attachment/patch scope. Nothing there was really applicable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2A646BF8-F061-4C8D-ACD3-A08DBF1EF5F0>