On 11/2/23 10:28, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Nov 1, 2023, at 9:32 PM, Perry E. Metzger<pe...@piermont.com> wrote:
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.
openmaintainer means that - but just for other committers.
That's not my understanding, though I could be wrong. Perhaps the exact
policy needs to be better documented?
I don't think we want anyone to be able to commit anything to any
openmaintainer port w/o review from a committer.
But they can't. Github doesn't allow it. Unless you have commit access
to a repository, a committer needs to be involved (and will review).
But, my understanding was you needed to wait three days?
(Maybe we need more committers or to be quicker in giving people commit,
though).
I think there are several major contributors right now who should be
given commit access, though that's a distinct issue.
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."
that's what openmaintainer means (with the exception of large changes changes)
I think that used to be the case but it was changed?
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.
Maybe we need an update to the port abandoned process (or some sort of positive
checkin for maintainers to make sure they're still interested in maintaining a
port)?
I think that would be good.
Perry
