Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:52:07 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: blanket portmgr approval vs. non-fixing changes Message-ID: <5772E377.1050509@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <18e609c1-e095-99b0-893a-0bb30d3c3d45@madpilot.net> References: <201606261724.u5QHOLdG081392@repo.freebsd.org> <57701AEB.1050001@tu-dortmund.de> <AABF87BCD32C14B8477C3620@atuin.in.mat.cc> <5770A392.6010605@tu-dortmund.de> <84e4fcf5-7b99-1cc6-e6bd-d3c594a5d102@marino.st> <CAOfEmZj3PzOgcpxb3WO%2B%2BSmSADf2sCt9_sKQ6dCbgwz6pRV4nQ@mail.gmail.com> <D9A4D908FD34A6F242BBD895@atuin.in.mat.cc> <CAOfEmZhzaM7K-L1gWO9%2Bc2s2nSsQaPr1eP=%2Bg65m6-brmEQd=Q@mail.gmail.com> <91BC5F8F9FDB9246529D0693@atuin.in.mat.cc> <5770EED4.1070202@tu-dortmund.de> <18e609c1-e095-99b0-893a-0bb30d3c3d45@madpilot.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 27.06.2016 um 12:02 schrieb Guido Falsi: >> 2. What I was meaning to state was that (and I'll not pick at the >> kind soul who has modernized the port) we should only apply the >> blanket approval if ports have fallen into disrepair. >=20 > I'd say that it's a matter of urgency for the change. Need for > urgency is evident for broken ports and also serious security > issues. >=20 > It could be less evident for infrastructure changes which need to be=20 > urgently deployed to a major number of ports, or changes to head > which require patching a lot of ports (one good example could be the > recent update to libc++ 3.8.0 in head, even if it could be accounted > as "broken ports" case, so with a relatively high degree of > urgency). Yeah - but then again head or -CURRENT is a moving target and by definition non-urgent and maintainers are encouraged, but not formally required, to support it. Generally you're raising a good point, but I'd wager the guess that most of these changes do need more extensive planning anyways and portmgr@ or whoever is driving such a sweeping infrastructure change will want to seek the maintainer's assistance. I'll normally be happy to help with such changes, only not under pressure= . [...] > We are now in a much better situation and most changes are less > urgent, and can wait some time. I'd say usually such changes should > go through bugzilla or phabric review, with portmgr adding special > case blankets for specific changes which should hit the tree as soon > as possible, if this is not an excessive burden on portmgr. On a related note, once in a while I am checking what's on Bugzilla's table only to find that even the stuff that looks easy (maintainer port submission or similar) breaks early or raises my suspicion. Unfortunately that often means I drop a PR and don't really help getting the ports PR cleared. When Miwi and I think Kris proposed me for a commits bit the deal used to be "if the project is find if I mostly tend to my ports"... and not much has changed since. > I'm not sure I agree on lowering the 14 days timeout for bug reports. > I usually reply in a matter of hours if at all possible, 2-3 days > when I take a long time, at least with a "going to test" message, but > not all people can manage this, lowering timeouts could raise the bar > on being a maintainer which is something I think we should avoid. I concur with that. I'll normally respond within 72 hours, often within 24, and sometimes quicker if the urgency catches my eye. A catchy subject on a message Cc:d to my @FreeBSD.org address helps a lot. "SECURITY" is sure to get my attention rather fast. > I think it could be enough to state a list of make targets which one=20 > must warrant keep working, it's obvious that make config, make > install and make deinstall should work correctly, less obvious for > other targets. That would work for me, too, as a first step.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5772E377.1050509>