Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:30:50 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: rene@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r476475 - head/devel/include-what-you-use Message-ID: <b0ab7cf6-c60a-c5b8-b000-4b177a5059c2@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAP7rwchnY_kCO%2B%2BgKiRddbAPi41%2BMDkWOHAHYYdeGSV=B=Vg%2BA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201808052045.w75Kjlnl059608@repo.freebsd.org> <dabb82ef-be41-6d16-f18b-a609c06699c1@FreeBSD.org> <CAP7rwchnY_kCO%2B%2BgKiRddbAPi41%2BMDkWOHAHYYdeGSV=B=Vg%2BA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/08/2018 10:04 am, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:32 PM Kubilay Kocak <koobs@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On 6/08/2018 6:45 am, Rene Ladan wrote: >>> Author: rene >>> Date: Sun Aug 5 20:45:47 2018 >>> New Revision: 476475 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/476475 >>> >>> Log: >>> devel/include-what-you-use: update to version 0.10 >>> >>> This version uses clang 6.0 >>> >>> Take over maintainership. >>> >>> Approved by: koobs (implicit, three consecutive maintainer timeouts) >> >> While 'technically correct', there's plenty of evidence I'm active >> (particularly of late), and the timeouts referenced date back to 2016. >> >> 2016-12-27 215211 >> 2017-12-24 223537 >> 2018-01-31 224617 >> >> Please revert the maintainer change and in future for maintainer >> changes, submit a PR with a maintainer change patch, and let that >> timeout. That's explicit. > > The question of whether you're active in general is orthogonal to > whether you're actively maintaining a specific port, and is why we > support changing maintainership on a port-by-port basis. Perfectly understandable and never in question. > René's maintainer change was by-the-book, and it's not possible to > guarantee you a reset pattern different from what all other > maintainers get. 'Technically' correct as mentioned, yes. I've asked for a revert on the basis that the reset for a consecutive timeout period of over 2 years and in this case without any other change (or PR). In cases where I cannot make a change myself given a time constraint, my default workflow/policy is to approve the change (where QA'd) and unblock the submitter. There was no opportunity to do so in this case. I'm still asking for the change to be reverted.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b0ab7cf6-c60a-c5b8-b000-4b177a5059c2>