Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 12:59:41 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> Cc: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, Adriaan de Groot <adridg@freebsd.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>, ports-committers <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r521892 - in head/math: . R-cran-alabama Message-ID: <CAP7rwcgewLs2xAdZq-%2BOnjRBJTetc7cfP0dwCV=OQP9zLDAEOg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <77DAB365-CC5A-40B3-B1C9-C9562C442833@freebsd.org> References: <202001030056.0030umrE001847@repo.freebsd.org> <20200103083628.b7b2b46pea33vu5f@atuin.in.mat.cc> <2968169.bT80LyP3VS@beastie.bionicmutton.org> <29C42407-97B1-4DDB-BEC3-DB397ECD85C7@freebsd.org> <6ba53399-84f5-961f-1fa1-1fb53f8f984f@FreeBSD.org> <77DAB365-CC5A-40B3-B1C9-C9562C442833@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 1:02 PM Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 3, 2020, at 11:17, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > On 03/01/2020 13:01, Devin Teske wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2020, at 06:50, Adriaan de Groot <adridg@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Friday, 3 January 2020 09:36:28 CET Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 12:56:48AM +0000, Devin Teske wrote: > > Author: dteske (src committer) > > As stated by this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you are not a ports committer. So you > are required to get approval, and state the approval in your commits, > saying it has been reviewed is not enough. > > Reviewed by: mat, imp (previous revision) > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22675 > > Question for mat@, just to be clear: the issue here is (only) that there > should be an extra line in the commit message, > Approved by: mat > or possibly > Approved by: mat (mentor) > as described in the committer's guide [1]. > > The Phab review was approved (accepted), so it's just the documentation o= f > process? > > > [1] https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide= / > commit-log-message.html > > The process is broken currently as I=E2=80=99ve been denied a ports commi= t bit and my mentorship is null and void for a ports bit. > > I do not not know how to navigate such a situation. > > In this case, would review be akin to approval and thus, whomsoever revie= wed it that is an active ports committer is therefore the approver? > > > Active committers can commit to other parts of the tree if they get appro= val from other active committers in that branch. It works both ways: src co= mmitters can (exceptionally) do ports or doc commits, and the other way aro= und. However, a phabricator review is not an approval unless it is explicit= . > > Just my $0.02, > > > What explicitly constitutes apprroval then? An accepted phab review, an accepted BZ PR, or any private interaction (email, irc, smoke signals, telepathy) approving the patch. We keep the bar really low intentionally; just get any ports committer to explicitly approve a patch and you can commit it (though the commit message has to state explicitly who approved it). # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAP7rwcgewLs2xAdZq-%2BOnjRBJTetc7cfP0dwCV=OQP9zLDAEOg>