From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 18 10:19:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC071065679; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:19:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C212D8FC08; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcje9 with SMTP id je9so1269680bkc.13 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:19:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3PkUn1VWk1iN+jy7X5Vz3ytW3zFHommNFXXTj39bat8=; b=loxZlZK/iKmZBBhx6HysLY5etRr6HsIQbjdCAciPtp0RNAU/RyFHPnDR+MbZsTjCcL MKzVdg/ZiJLXTMJ9U0SE7r546jqYDtYBz/fgXcAlnr/ihUKS8WZFeceBf0veCxtnxU41 npQaCPln2coVawggHukiAr75Tw1wad5vW1RkFM2xsh61PfWhT5ttZ9qlPzFHOdhJQ/ho 26yMU+3B7vzke9iNaMRQ1OYX334FG2h5MqVEyYAncshAibeR960WoJT4lnGyEDk/YQw5 fIPxHSVykffzyZIrh/ehL8JYy4PSKQ7Xdd2b/EcprQ6kFZ8kycvyOH4LJ4Xskvfwt/WE SURQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.128.213 with SMTP id l21mr1105168bks.84.1342606777794; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.49.87 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.49.87 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:19:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50065B3B.8040404@marino.st> References: <50017C97.3050200@filez.com> <20120714192119.GA61563@vniz.net> <5001CB97.6070205@filez.com> <50054F6E.9040002@filez.com> <50055293.3010002@FreeBSD.org> <20120717213902.GB21825@lonesome.com> <5005E2AE.3040806@marino.st> <20120717224302.GA26742@lonesome.com> <50065B3B.8040404@marino.st> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:19:37 +0100 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: John Marino Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Mark Linimon , FreeBSD Mailing List , Michael Scheidell Subject: Re: maintainer timeout for FreeBSD commiters X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:19:39 -0000 On 18 Jul 2012 07:44, "John Marino" wrote: > > On 7/18/2012 00:43, Mark Linimon wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:09:50AM +0200, John Marino wrote: >>> >>> Would it be so bad if all my submitted patches (as a recognized >>> quality contributor with history) just got committed as a passthrough? >> >> >> This has been explored on the mailing lists before, however, we don't >> technically have a way to do either of the following: >> >> - let people commit to "just some" ports >> - have any patches be autocommitted >> >> No one has ever tackled the former problem. The latter problem just >> seems to me to open up ways for people to abuse the system. It makes >> me nervous. > > > Well, between the two I would suggest a combination of "let people autocommit patches to "just some" ports". > > Reasons - Don't have to hassle with the logistics of giving a limited commit bit, risk getting the permissions wrong, and removing it after the maintainer retires. > > You'd have to create an automatic system that could verify the patches apply cleanly (or maybe just accept file replacements), and that the files came from maintainer. A public/private key system should do that. All you'd need to do is is map keys to ports and not accept any files outside of the allowed area. Removing that mapping is a lot easier than tweaking commit privileges. > > Yes, somebody would have to set that up but it would pay big dividend I think. It also does away with the QA aspect that committers currently provide. I'd like to repeat that people sufficiently familiar with the ports system to QA patches generally ends up with a commit bit fairly quickly. Chris