> On 27 Jun, 2016, at 3:27, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2016-06-27 16:58 GMT+08:00 Matthias Andree <matthias.and...@tu-dortmund.de>: > Am 27.06.2016 um 10:16 schrieb Mathieu Arnold: > > > > > > +--On 27 juin 2016 16:10:36 +0800 Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdp...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > | 2016-06-27 16:02 GMT+08:00 Mathieu Arnold <m...@freebsd.org>: > > |> | Read here for reference: > > |> | > > |> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintainer > > |> | .html > > |> > > |> That pages says, exactly the opposite of what you are trying to says: > > |> > > | > > | No it doesn't! > > | > > | And this is the normal workflow: > > | 1) Port has a maintainer, and it needs update. > > | 2) Open a PR with the patch. > > | 3) After 2 weeks, and with timeout; anybody can commit it. > > | > > | > > | And about the ownership and belong to the community, I do believe in that, > > | that is the basic in a legal point of view. > > > > That page says that the maintainer has to be consulted, except for changes > > covered by the blanket approval, where the change can be committed > > immediately. > > > > In this case, Sunpoet had every right to commit the thing he did without > > asking or notifying the maintainer. > > > TL;DR given at the very end. > > > 1. Given the portmgr@ rules, that is our current policy, that portmgr@ > as the overseers of the ports system have delegated, by the blanket > approval, part of their ultimate responsibility to the public. > > 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. > > > 2b. This was not the case with db6, the port wasn't known broken to me, > so why do we permit and encourage going the fast path for changes that > do not /repair/ a port (for instance, if it's not building, to fix > misspellings), and I'm surprised because some two months ago, it has > already gone through a modernization round after gahr's PR, > <https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208740>, that also > combined a feature addition and required a bit more work to get right, > see changesets 415741 and 415743. > > > 3. What would have been bad about filing a PR in this case? > > The argument "maintainers aren't doing it" is covered by the maintainer > timeout. Anything that does not need the fast path should go through > some form of review, most naturally through a PR filed to the port's > maintainer. > > > 4. Do we need to tighten up the set of required tests a committed does > before committing non-maintainer updates? > > I'm scratching my head over this one since the failure in r417590 that > got remedied in r417595 was rather peculiar, and I'm not sure if anyone, > including myself, would have figured that out. It might have slipped > through the cracks even if I'd reviewed it. > > 4b. It's probably better to extend the committer's guide and/or porter's > handbook and have a list of test recommendations where we list things > that trigger a certain test requirement. I. e. things to test IN > ADDITION to the usual "poudriere testport" or "make DEVELOPER=yes clean > all check-plist package" and portlint coverage. Meaning that if someone > tweaks any of the WRK* and *DIR/*SRC-related variables, "also test 'make > clean extract do-patch makepatch' on a copy of the port directory" or > thereabouts. > > mat@ thanks for all the explanation and time. > > Unfortunately, I still make things a bit manual at my side, but usually my > testbed is: > 1) Portlint. > 2) Make and likes on i386 and amd64(clean vm). > > I think, include more information about test recommendations is always good. > > > > There seem to be at least two distinct camps, in one camp, maintainers > go along Marcelo's and my trains of thought, in the other, maintainers > cherish fast and low-ceremony progress, marino has argued along these > lines, and some other portmgr@ members have pushed for progress in the > past. > > I don't mean to bikeshed or split up our project here, just refine our > existing policies. > > > TL;DR: I propose: > > - the blanket approval should be tightened up a bit and encourage that > non-trivial and non-urgent changes go through the PR and invoke > mantainer timeout after the shortest possible period. > > Personally, I like the first option! And in addition, we have phabricator as > an option too, at least for src, the reviews are made very quickly. > So, could be defined a short timeout, at least for those that are active and > would like to help make a review, seems something reasonable. > > Also I do understand about all the modernization and definitely we need it, > maybe 2 days timeout is enough for an active maintainer to reply that he is > busy or he is working on that. > > > > - we discuss about an assisting set of "change these variables > foo.*regexp, and you also need to test 'make foo' and 'make bar'" rules > in the form of a concise list.
Maintainership too often means that change requests get ignored for two weeks before they're committed. Aside from large, complex, interconnected systems, I think that we should do away with ports maintainership entirely. Maintainership serves absolutely no purpose that peer-review wouldn't do better. Any committer should be able to commit to any port. That used to be what po...@freebsd.org meant, that it was being maintained by everybody. But somehow, in the last few years that turned into a message that it's being maintained by nobody, so now ports *have* to be maintained by somebody, even if that person never touches it again. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
