From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 2 11:02:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B25C475E; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D5CA189C; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.31.10.22] (unknown [213.225.137.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CF7438BD; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 05:01:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <529C689B.9050902@marino.st> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:01:47 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philippe_Aud=E9oud?= Subject: Re: svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d References: <201311301102.rAUB2I21004889@svn.freebsd.org> <20131202093409.GA71618@tuxaco.net> <529C5F05.6020706@marino.st> <20131202104324.GB71618@tuxaco.net> In-Reply-To: <20131202104324.GB71618@tuxaco.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:02:12 -0000 On 12/2/2013 11:43, Philippe Audéoud wrote: > I don't do a big deal but I like the idea to respect others job. If i > was known to not update my ports when needed, I can understand that > someone is doing my job. Well, actually you did make a big deal about it, but let's talk about the other thing. > When i take the maintainership of a port, I interpret it as "I'm taking > care of this port and thanks to let me know if you want to do something > with". > If I follow your idea, ok, let's commit on all maintainer's port without > approval. Then, the idea of maintainer is useless. Let me be clear: If the change is a patch to make it work better, or improve the functionality, address options, or basically any change to what the maintainer *intended* then of course it needs the permission of the maintainer. However, if it's a missing dependency, or a typographical error, or something really REALLY obviously and it's *broken* because of it, then no, I don't think those cases should require writing a PR and potentially waiting 2 weeks for it to time out. The number of non-responsive maintainers vastly outnumbers those that respond quickly and that includes those with @freebsd.org addresses. > So, again, i don't do a big deal but as an active maintainer, I don't > like someone else is doing my job whitout asking. Port deletion isn't necessarily "your job". The vast majority of ports are deleted by someone other than the maintainer. I really hope portmgr@ starts addressing cases where other maintainers can help with obvious breakage. Obviously it needs to be written and defined clearly so that we have something to point to when the listed maintainer gets touchy about it (which they should not be). Now, I will say that if one dares to touch a port maintained by another, the change he or she makes had better be correct! Making the wrong change to someone else's port is justification for them getting upset. John