As an aside, as it stands, the rules situation with closed maintainer /
open maintainer is kind of unpleasant already. For example, I'd like to
be able to indicate that I'm happy with anyone making reasonable changes
to my ports on their own without waiting three days for me, but there's
no way to do that, because "open maintainer" really means "three day
timeout" just like closed. It would be nice if we had some sort of
larger set of gradations for what people prefer, from "I handle all
commits on this, period" to "if you have commit access and want to help,
don't ask, just do it."
As another aside, we also have a ton of ghost maintainers who never
respond but whose name being on the port means you have to
ritualistically wait three days for a reply you know will never come.
Perry
On 11/1/23 18:29, Joshua Root wrote:
An understandable presumption in itself, however there was another
force push after dluke's last comment, so the changes that ended up
being merged had not been reviewed by the maintainer.
This was pretty clearly just a misunderstanding, but maybe we should
clarify the policies to only allow merging by others (before timeout)
when there is a non-stale approving review from the maintainer.
- Josh
On 2/11/2023 09:12, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Your communication in the thread was:
> ideally we'll get confirmation from @barracuda156
<https://github.com/barracuda156> that we've got a working solution
before we merge as well.
After he verified that it was working for him, I presumed you were
okay with it being committed.
Perry
On 11/1/23 17:22, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
Perry - I had not yet signed off on this PR.
The port is not openmaintainer.
Please refrain from making changes to non-openmaintainer ports
without the maintainer's approval.
On Nov 1, 2023, at 12:48 PM, Christopher Chavez via
macports-changes<macports-chan...@lists.macports.org> wrote:
Perry E. Metzger (pmetzger) pushed a commit to branch master
in repository macports-ports.
