Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:38:44 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, Ports Management Team <portmgr@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r307457 - head/Mk Message-ID: <20121115163843.GH75103@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=TrZ3cdvRL8sOiyfr6uquNw%2BeC4xKv5F1fKNwo-w15sA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201211151436.qAFEahgO099183@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgkh%2BWFoqo8ii8t6iOvu4zn_pHsAAVKZW%2BzDaaBZaFRXeg@mail.gmail.com> <20121115161242.GA88933@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxg=TrZ3cdvRL8sOiyfr6uquNw%2BeC4xKv5F1fKNwo-w15sA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--0XhtP95kHFp3KGBe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:22:47AM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 15 November 2012 11:12, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:08:06AM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> On 15 November 2012 09:36, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > New Revision: 307457 > >> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/307457 > >> > > >> > Log: > >> > Add SOCKS and STROKE options standard descriptions. > >> > >> Can portmgr please make it more clear what is and isn't permitted > >> during a feature freeze? > >> http://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/implementation.html would seem to say > >> that this commit is not allowed (any commit to bsd.*.mk) but I've seen > >> already a few commits to this file. > > > > Oops, technically you're right, sorry, didn't catch that *any* part. On > > the other hand, I do not think this particular commit can break anythin= g, > > plus we already had branched. I can grep -R just to make sure. >=20 > To be clear: >=20 > I want portmgr to clarify this. I *don't* want this to be disallowed. >=20 > The problem is that there isn't any document that is actually being follo= wed > that says "this is okay, but that isn't". >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Eitan Adler > Source, Ports, Doc committer > Bugmeister, Ports Security teams Everything can't be written in a policy, or that would be so long that noone will actually read it. We expect people to have some common sense. The main reason for this freeze= is to be able to have clean packages for the release and we don't want any com= mit to break the tree so that we are sure to have the cleanest packages tree po= ssible. So before committing ask yourself "does it ever has a chance to be able to = break things?" Modifying something that can potentially have an inpact on the ports buildi= ng process is definitly prohibited, doing a sweep commit is prohibited, modifying the license framework is prohibited in the sense that it can act = on restricted informations and thus inpact lots of ports etc, we can't list al= l. But modifying options descriptions or adding some new can't have any inpact= so obviously it is feature safe. Sure we need some policy, but please, can we avoid too much bureaucracy and= trust the common sense? I think in that parcitular case of ports freeze the rules= are quite clear, and if you have a single doubt just send a mail requesting for= a portmgr approval. regards, bapt --0XhtP95kHFp3KGBe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlClGpMACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ex6tQCgk9/3KXthFuRCpFSuugNAAnxn OfEAn19sxxu40ZxoQo36axO09tO/tNkk =dV+p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0XhtP95kHFp3KGBe--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121115163843.GH75103>