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

[Renato Botelho]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 06:14:52PM -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:23:04 -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.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what do you mean by "automatic" but those links may give
> > you requested information about 2 weeks timeout on PRs:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintainer.html
> > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/contributing-ports/maintain-port.html
> 
> 
> <quote>
> Changes to the port will be sent to the maintainer of a port for a 
> review and an approval before being committed. If the maintainer does 
> not respond to an update request after two weeks (excluding major public 
> holidays), then that is considered a maintainer timeout, and the update 
> may be made without explicit maintainer approval.
> </quote>
> 
> <quote>
> Wait
> 
> At some stage a committer will deal with your PR. It may take minutes, 
> or it may take weeks - so please be patient.
> </quote>
> 
> Nothing here says 2 weeks timeout somehow should apply to assigned PRs, 
> in fact quite on contrary.
> 
> In other words open and assigned PR is not equivalent of request of 
> approval IMHO. Imagine somebody just going to the PR database and 
> starting commit everything that has been in queue for more than 2 weeks. 
> I bet it will piss lot of people off.

I always thougth the timeout policy is the same maintainer being or not a
committer, PRs are automatically assigned when we are both.

Personally, when i don't want nobody use timeout policy against a PR
*auto-assigned* to me, i send an answer to it or just change it to analyzed,
always work for me.

- -- 
Renato Botelho <garga @ FreeBSD.org>
               <garga @ freebsdbrasil.com.br>
GnuPG Key: http://www.FreeBSD.org/~garga/pubkey.asc

I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol
that some thinkle peep I am.
It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkj9OaAACgkQ6CRbiSJE7akpLACdG/IefQboIYALKojNyC9n0MsD
iWkAnijeYBL6lV/A73rrjE7Bra2RlmyV
=JVyq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----