Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:52:11 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Self committing... allowed or not? Message-ID: <20150719165211.GE50618@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <55ABD3EA.8010704@sorbs.net> References: <55AB91ED.3080908@sorbs.net> <9917125A-6342-4F62-B374-E4F456EDC015@FreeBSD.org> <55ABBFEC.60302@sorbs.net> <20150719154449.GD50618@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <55ABD3EA.8010704@sorbs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--3O1VwFp74L81IIeR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > > =20 > >> Dimitry Andric wrote: > >> =20 > >>> On 19 Jul 2015, at 14:02, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> wrot= e: > >>> =20 > >>> =20 > >>>> please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't self committing (those with= the > >>>> commit bit committing their own patches without QA/review/adding > >>>> patchfiles to the PR) against the rules?... or is it just a free-for= -all > >>>> now? > >>>> =20 > >>>> =20 > >>> If they are the maintainer, it is OK by definition. Otherwise, appro= val > >>> from either the maintainer or portmgr@ is needed. > >>> > >>> However, a number of people are on vacation, and they have notified > >>> other developers that is OK to fix their ports while they are away. > >>> Within reason, of course. :-) > >>> > >>> In any case, which specific ports are you worried about? > >>> > >>> -Dimitry > >>> > >>> =20 > >>> =20 > >> Here's the case and the three referenced commits: > >> > >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D199265 > >> > >> And I know the top-level dependency will now break other things because > >> of a minor detail that the committer did not take into account... That > >> said I don't know if any other dependencies on it exist (so therefore = it > >> might not break anything else - however I am fairly sure it wasn't > >> checked by the committer because of the speed and absoluteness of the > >> change) because I don't need it/use it myself... but that is not the > >> point. I was 'just lucky' to come across this change process as I was > >> not looking for anything, just happened to be in the right place at the > >> right time to see it, and considering the hoops use plebs (those witho= ut > >> the commit bit) have to jump through I thought it was rather ironic th= at > >> 3 separate ports were changed, no testing was recorded in the PR as we > >> the plebs are required to do, no patches uploaded as we the plebs have > >> to do and no review as we the plebs have to have...=20 > >> > >> =20 > > do you appear to know the said ports were broken (segfault) at startup = because > > of various libssl mixup, they have been tested and fixed. if another is= sue > > appears on those ports I will fix them. > > =20 > I'm guessing you missed the '--use-ldap' in the top level dependency...= =20 > I'm assuming you know there are issues with openldap and the use base vs > use ports issue... particularly with dependent ports and incompatible > options... your 'fix' quite possibly fixed one problem and caused > another (not your fault as it happens - but an unintended consequence of > an unchecked change... if you want to bring order and stability this is > not the way to proceed. (That said neither is laborious change control > and peer review, but some is needed and the rules should apply to > everyone or there will be more chaos.)) I haven't missed the --use-ldap dependency, openldap does respect USE_OPENS= SL as well so even if the situation is quite "broken" dealing with openssl, my co= mmit reduces the inpact on seafile. In fact what I am working on is enforcing openssl (or libressl at user choi= ce) =66rom ports directly (which is why I worked on the ports in the first plac= e - after someone complained on IRC that one month after the ticket being creat= ed nothing happened). Best regards, Bapt --3O1VwFp74L81IIeR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlWr1bsACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ezx1ACfc7S2FhIGH2nSIp3mwTINiqdG QX4AnioQoL2sKs4gNH23pjnyDXO0x1UR =Yvlx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3O1VwFp74L81IIeR--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150719165211.GE50618>