Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:44:07 +0200 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org>, wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile ports/net/asterisk/files patch-main-utils.c patch-main::utils.c Message-ID: <48FD7A37.6000901@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <48FD2E39.4000603@FreeBSD.org> References: <200810201626.m9KGQFZx016617@repoman.freebsd.org> <48FCBBC5.4070603@FreeBSD.org> <20081020174908.GA9181@icarus.home.lan> <48FCCAB5.5020208@FreeBSD.org> <48FCCC88.6090009@FreeBSD.org> <20081020213840.GA13440@icarus.home.lan> <48FD2E39.4000603@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> The user and I were discussing, privately, scheduler-related things, and >> the PR was mentioned. I told him that ports maintainers are allowed up >> to 2 weeks to respond, after which other committers can take over if >> need be. After 2 weeks had passed, the user provided me the patch (the >> original PR mail snipped his attachment), and I committed it. > > I still don't see any place where it says that the assigned PR with no > activity for more than 2 weeks on it should be considered as an approval > request. Just opening PR is not enough IMHO, it's usually task of the > requester to contact maintainer and seek for explicit approval if he > wants faster turnaround. Maxim, you are out of touch with the common practice here as of lately. Indeed, we have been applying two-week timeouts on PRs assigned to committers, for a long time now. Generally, it works well. Obviously there are exceptions... Pav
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48FD7A37.6000901>