Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:13:40 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/nedit/files patch-util-misc.c Message-ID: <4F2C5C14.8070605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120203163537.GA6473@FreeBSD.org> References: <201202030851.q138pWbE025501@repoman.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgnoOiiT4KeUf1UA2CziGN2UX_sqrWhqDRvWWAo-tL=mPA@mail.gmail.com> <20120203163537.GA6473@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/03/2012 08:35, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > I concur. While it's very tempting to fix FreeBSD port (especially when > it's maintained by you (not you == Daniel, but in general sense)) we should > always first contact upstream maintainers/vendor and submit a fix and (at > best) ask for review. Right, with the qualification you gave below. I'd also add an exception for "Obviously correct change" since I like to think that we can give our maintainers credit for a clue or 2. :) > In case upstream maintainers are not very responsive, > but fix is critical or trivial enough, it's OK to fix such port directly, > but upstream bug tracker should be filled with detailed bug description and > attached patch. I'd also add that mentioning "I did/did not submit this upstream because..." and if appropriate, "... and I was told that ..." to the commit log would be a good thing. Not only for those of us who review these things as they go by, but also for posterity in case things don't go as planned. -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F2C5C14.8070605>