From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar  4 10:00:37 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C06A0B6D;
 Wed,  4 Mar 2015 10:00:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zoom.lafn.org (zoom.lafn.org [108.92.93.123])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961E58E2;
 Wed,  4 Mar 2015 10:00:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (static-71-177-216-148.lsanca.fios.verizon.net
 [71.177.216.148]) (authenticated bits=0)
 by zoom.lafn.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t24A0YwY079198
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
 Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:00:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bc979@lafn.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Subject: Re: Approving a patch
From: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org>
In-Reply-To: <54F6AA26.1080404@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:00:34 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2A646BF8-F061-4C8D-ACD3-A08DBF1EF5F0@lafn.org>
References: <93878D88-4F1E-41EF-B99B-0B70119DDE0C@lafn.org>
 <54F6155C.3010405@FreeBSD.org> <54F6AA26.1080404@FreeBSD.org>
To: koobs@FreeBSD.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98 at zoom.lafn.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org,
 "bugmeister@freebsd.org" <bugmeister@FreeBSD.org>,
 Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:00:37 -0000


> 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.