From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Fri Apr 1 12:56:38 2016 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 C3F06AECA17; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:56:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erwin@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.droso.net (sloth.droso.dk [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc2:53:216:3eff:fee8:c1ca]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B571C0F; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:56:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erwin@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 2a02-0980-2510-ba00-b8c2-0de2-9849-045b.v6.fullrate.ninja (2a02-0980-2510-ba00-b8c2-0de2-9849-045b.v6.fullrate.ninja [IPv6:2a02:980:2510:ba00:b8c2:de2:9849:45b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.droso.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 346D620145; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:56:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: sloth; dmarc=none header.from=FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r412296 - head/lang/rust Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DABE711-9C11-4CEE-ABB4-3CDE9FE16680"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2 From: Erwin Lansing In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:56:19 +0200 Cc: Thomas Zander , Jan Beich , "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Message-Id: References: <201603312004.u2VK4n5n028013@repo.freebsd.org> To: Mathieu Arnold X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40% * [score: 0.2981] * 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on sloth X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:56:38 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0DABE711-9C11-4CEE-ABB4-3CDE9FE16680 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 01 Apr 2016, at 15:06, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >=20 > +--On 1 avril 2016 12:05:47 +0200 Thomas Zander = wrote: > | On 1 April 2016 at 11:45, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > | > |> It is documented in the porter's handbook, where it all belongs: > |> = |> er.html> > |> > |> And, it is covered by the "Trivial and tested build and runtime = fixes." > |> bullet point. > | > | Thanks for stepping in, but I am a 100% sure that this statement = will > | not put the case to rest. Based on this statement: > | - John will maintain his position that this commit was trivial, = tested > | and fixes a problem *on DragonFly* and hence *is* covered by the > | blanket > | - I will maintain my position that this commit does *not* fix a > | problem *on FreeBSD* and hence is *not* covered by the blanket > | > | I am totally fine accepting any verdict from portmgr, but I want it = to > | be inescapably clear. Please review the commit and let us know once > | and for all: Is this particular one covered by the blanket or not? >=20 > *I* would say that you are right and it's not a FreeBSD fix, and thus, = is > not covered by the blanket. But I don't know what portmgr as a whole > thinks about it. Rather than nitpick what the rules say exactly, I=E2=80=99d take a step = back and consider how we like to work together. On the surface, it = indeed seems a trivial commit, but on the other hand the port has an = active maintainer, from whom a quick reply could be expected. Taken = together, I would have chosen to ask the maintainer first, out of = respect for the maintainer. In a similar situation, I would imagine = myself as the maintainer and how I would feel if I saw a commit happen = to my port and wonder why the change was so important it couldn=E2=80=99t = wait for me to have a look at it first. We have this great = technological platform, but in the end it=E2=80=99s the people that make = this project. Just because there is a rule or policy that might allow = one to do something, does not mean it=E2=80=99s the right thing to do. Erwin --Apple-Mail=_0DABE711-9C11-4CEE-ABB4-3CDE9FE16680 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJW/m/3AAoJEFF75hSlwe7HZoQH/i/ZL+Xh4E4IACM/+ygVz5A+ OT/9vKHPT65+Rfb5Y3ANxQILJZxrnz2cUyOnFpZELvyNak0sn+rOjFEWWpLLRR8x lmq5ChKM2F7NIv/22zXBGq5LW6NVj1+KuDZ/o7UnL7lbKIKxfamKGb0CzZwuQOLM iWKVetF80rRP5uNyy0Nnkk7MRsT0l+zGH0763JC64KxoZbhXgP4zQzlAYPvNbnWE uz6JgETAMAyN8Q2Pf6AlDV3JKcdL997WaYLuxeqABPjFnCO6XE946X7tI8VHQeBQ fkrTZxJ+ZHe3LrW8JLRHgLgp+2Qlu3jKLYurij/v7XRHl8cBJLtHDIfuRI2RQNw= =EcR0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0DABE711-9C11-4CEE-ABB4-3CDE9FE16680--