blanket portmgr approval vs. non-fixing changes (was: svn commit: r417590 - in head/databases/db6: . files and 417595 (revert))

[Cy Schubert]

In message <5770EED4.1070202 at tu-dortmund.de>, Matthias Andree writes:
> [Sorry for this re-send, I feel we need to re-send thisto ports@ so the
> discussion goes to a public and archived list.]
> 
> Am 27.06.2016 um 10:16 schrieb Mathieu Arnold:
> > 
> > 
> > +--On 27 juin 2016 16:10:36 +0800 Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > | 2016-06-27 16:02 GMT+08:00 Mathieu Arnold <mat at freebsd.org>:
> > |> | Read here for reference:
> > |> | 
> > |> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintaine
> r
> > |> | .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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> - 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.

Mathias,

I'm surprised at your position. I recall a commit you made to one of my 
ports a few years ago, to which I objected. Your position now is a complete 
reversal of your arguments then.


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org

	The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.