> On 27 Jun, 2016, at 9:22, Kubilay Kocak <ko...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 28/06/2016 12:25 AM, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> 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. > > There's two senses of 'ownership' that are often conflated, or at least > almost never made explicit. > > The kind we want, more of, and would hate to lose: > > - responsibility, accountability, pride in 'looking after' something > > The other we don't: > > - territorial, xenophobic (mine/yours, ours/theirs), hoarding, exclusive use > > Which one we have, get, or foster, has everything to do with how we > teach people we do things around here, how clearly we articulate our > goals and intentions, and nothing to do with MAINTAINER intrinsically. > > All: How did you feel the first time you saw your email on a maintainer > line? That is priceless and shouldn't be confused with the 'bad' kind of > ownership.
You're a wise man, koobs. What I said was a classic nirvana fallacy. That feeling of seeing my name on a maintainer line is precisely why I contributed to FreeBSD a second time. And you're completely right that there is a difference between owning a toy and being the only one allowed to play with it. I am a huge fan of the blanket. I'd sent an email to portmgr requesting it shortly before it got announced. So whether or not one had anything to do with the other, I like to pretend that I played a part in its creation. I guess I just don't understand why it really bothers some others. # 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"
