Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:09:00 -0800 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org>, Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "bugmeister@freebsd.org" <bugmeister@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Approving a patch Message-ID: <1abfdf1d233fbfca0afeba6d4528d049@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <54F6DD1B.6080400@FreeBSD.org> References: <93878D88-4F1E-41EF-B99B-0B70119DDE0C@lafn.org> <54F6155C.3010405@FreeBSD.org> <54F6AA26.1080404@FreeBSD.org> <2A646BF8-F061-4C8D-ACD3-A08DBF1EF5F0@lafn.org> <54F6D8FC.2080703@FreeBSD.org>, <54F6DD1B.6080400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:23:23 +1100 Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> wrote > On 4/03/2015 9:05 PM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > > On 4/03/2015 9:00 PM, Doug Hardie wrote: > >> > >>> On 3 March 2015, at 22:45, Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Canonically and preferred: > >>> > >>> Set maintainer-approval flag to + *on the attachment/patch*. > >>> > >>> The maintainer-feedback flag is at the issue/bug scope, not the > >>> attachment/patch scope. > >>> > >>> This of course requires the maintainer-approval flag was set to ? with > >>> your email as the value first. > >>> > >>> Currently this is not automatic, but *should be* if there is an > >>> attachment of type: patch in the issue. I'll create an issue for that > >>> now for bugmeister@ to look into addressing. > >>> > >>> Only in cases where maintainer-approval is *not* already set to"?", is > >>> using the maintainer-feedback flag + comment flow OK. > >>> > >>> Setting maintainer-feedback is ambiguous, and is used to prove > >>> 'acknowledgement' of an issue or question. > >>> > >>> This is especially the case when there are multiple version of patches, > >>> or patches from multiple contributors. In future it will be used to > >>> derive "maintainer timeouts" to kick issues along, and open them up for > >>> someone else to make a decision on. > >>> > >>> tldr; Set the maintainer-approval flag to + > >>> > >> > >> Thanks to all who replied. I found and set the maintainer-feedback flag > >> at the issue/bug scope. I couldn’t find any similar flag at the > >> attachment/patch scope. Nothing there was really applicable. >> > > > > Which issue? > > > > Doug, > > Ignore that, I found it: > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198224 > > I've set the maintainer-approval flag to "+" for you. > > Note: this is what I meant in my on-list reply by: > > "This of course requires the maintainer-approval flag was set to ? with > your email as the value first." > > In your issues case, the flag hadn't been set yet. > > I've created a new issue on this exact point, so as to make setting the > maintainer-approval flag automatic. You can follow it here: > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198271 Along those lines; would it make any sense to convert the current [select] into a [radio]? I must admit, it took me awhile to *conclusively* determine what best applied, and when/where. It all just seemed a bit more difficult to ascertain, than need be. Using a [radio] would allow for a more concise (intuitive?) description. Just a thought. --Chris > > -- > Regards, > > Kubilay Kocak > Bugmeister > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1abfdf1d233fbfca0afeba6d4528d049>