Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 17:44:49 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> Cc: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Self committing... allowed or not? Message-ID: <20150719154449.GD50618@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <55ABBFEC.60302@sorbs.net> References: <55AB91ED.3080908@sorbs.net> <9917125A-6342-4F62-B374-E4F456EDC015@FreeBSD.org> <55ABBFEC.60302@sorbs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--oj4kGyHlBMXGt3Le Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 19 Jul 2015, at 14:02, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> wrote: > > =20 > >> please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't self committing (those with t= he > >> commit bit committing their own patches without QA/review/adding > >> patchfiles to the PR) against the rules?... or is it just a free-for-a= ll > >> now? > >> =20 > > > > If they are the maintainer, it is OK by definition. Otherwise, approval > > from either the maintainer or portmgr@ is needed. > > > > However, a number of people are on vacation, and they have notified > > other developers that is OK to fix their ports while they are away. > > Within reason, of course. :-) > > > > In any case, which specific ports are you worried about? > > > > -Dimitry > > > > =20 > Here's the case and the three referenced commits: >=20 > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D199265 >=20 > And I know the top-level dependency will now break other things because > of a minor detail that the committer did not take into account... That > said I don't know if any other dependencies on it exist (so therefore it > might not break anything else - however I am fairly sure it wasn't > checked by the committer because of the speed and absoluteness of the > change) because I don't need it/use it myself... but that is not the > point. I was 'just lucky' to come across this change process as I was > not looking for anything, just happened to be in the right place at the > right time to see it, and considering the hoops use plebs (those without > the commit bit) have to jump through I thought it was rather ironic that > 3 separate ports were changed, no testing was recorded in the PR as we > the plebs are required to do, no patches uploaded as we the plebs have > to do and no review as we the plebs have to have...=20 >=20 do you appear to know the said ports were broken (segfault) at startup beca= use of various libssl mixup, they have been tested and fixed. if another issue appears on those ports I will fix them. --oj4kGyHlBMXGt3Le Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlWrxfEACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ez8IQCgvNiKn+QKiHy8S2l/Mp+LJ4vM SM4AmwbsCcZcVU7TfKRBkLpZf9ucUIfW =3P0b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oj4kGyHlBMXGt3Le--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150719154449.GD50618>