On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:14:52 -0700 Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Boris Samorodov wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:23:04 -0700 Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >> Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:11:33AM -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >>>>> Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >>>>>> koitsu 2008-10-20 16:26:15 UTC > >>>>>> > >>>>>> FreeBSD ports repository > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Modified files: > >>>>>> net/asterisk Makefile Added files: > >>>>>> net/asterisk/files patch-main-utils.c Removed files: > >>>>>> net/asterisk/files patch-main::utils.c Log: > >>>>>> - Follow present-day naming scheme of files/ patches > >>>>>> - Increase PORTREVISION > >>>>> Jeremy, > >>>>> > >>>>> If you have not noticed there is an active maintainer for this > >>>>> port. I would appreciate if you run all your changes through > >>>>> him. This patch should have been submitted to the Digium bug > >>>>> tracking system. > >>>> ports/127829 was filed over 2 weeks ago with no response. The reporter > >>>> spoke to me privately (since we were discussing scheduler stuff) and > >>>> mentioned this PR. I told him if you did not respond within 2 weeks > >>>> (maintainer timeout), that I would commit the fix -- he felt it was very > >>>> urgent to get this done promptly. > >>> The issue is hardly a critical one and there is no such thing as > >>> "automatic 2 weeks timeout". > > > >> ..."automatic 2 weeks timeout on PRs", I mean. > > > >> If you have contacted me privately you would have probably learned > >> that I am working on update to the port and planning on including this > >> change into it. > > > > I'm not sure what do you mean by "automatic" but those links may give > > you requested information about 2 weeks timeout on PRs: > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintainer.html > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/contributing-ports/maintain-port.html
> <quote> > Changes to the port will be sent to the maintainer of a port for a > review and an approval before being committed. If the maintainer does > not respond to an update request after two weeks (excluding major > public holidays), then that is considered a maintainer timeout, and > the update may be made without explicit maintainer approval. > </quote> > <quote> > Wait > At some stage a committer will deal with your PR. It may take minutes, > or it may take weeks - so please be patient. > </quote> > Nothing here says 2 weeks timeout somehow should apply to assigned > PRs, in fact quite on contrary. <quote> The timeout for non-responsive maintainers is 14 days. After this period changes may be committed unapproved. They have taken the trouble to do this for you; so please try to at least respond promptly. Then review, approve, modify or discuss their changes with them as soon as possible. </quote> Nothing says that there is difference between maintainers non-committers and maintainers which are committers. > In other words open and assigned PR is not equivalent of request of > approval IMHO. The problem is that many (at least ports) PRs are auto-assigned now. And if there is no responce from a committer no one can be sure if the committer is aware of the PR. > Imagine somebody just going to the PR database and > starting commit everything that has been in queue for more than 2 > weeks. I bet it will piss lot of people off. BTW, thanks for maintaining this port, much appreciated. WBR -- bsam _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
