cvs commit: ports/net/asterisk Makefile ports/net/asterisk/files patch-main-utils.c patch-main::utils.c

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:23:04AM -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.

Maxim, I'm sorry that I've somehow offended you in the process of doing
this.  It was not my intention.

My view of the problem: a user filed a PR over 2 weeks ago which you did
not respond to (due to being busy with other things or real life -- no
biggie).  In this "timeout" scenario (see the URLs Boris provided in
another mail), other committers are allowed to step in and help if need
be.

The user and I were discussing, privately, scheduler-related things, and
the PR was mentioned.  I told him that ports maintainers are allowed up
to 2 weeks to respond, after which other committers can take over if
need be.  After 2 weeks had passed, the user provided me the patch (the
original PR mail snipped his attachment), and I committed it.

I do not mean to offend you with this statement, but had you responded
to the original PR and told the user "I'm aware of the problem, and that
problem will be fixed in an upcoming release of the port I'm working on,
no ETA", I strongly doubt any of this would have transpired the way it
did.

Finally, with regards to your request to "file this with the Digium bug
system" (upstream) -- just whose responsibility is this?  Is it really
mine (because I committed something to the ports tree), or is it the
users' responsibility since they filed the PR?  I'd like to know, since
if there's a responsibility I have which I wasn't aware of, then I need
to take steps in the future to do things correctly.

The mistake with the patch filename and lack of PORTREVISION bump are
completely understandable and absolutely my fault.  But clarification
with regards to the latter items would be helpful.

Thanks.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking                       http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.              PGP: 4BD6C0CB |

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                jdc at parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking                       http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                  Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.              PGP: 4BD6C0CB |