blanket portmgr approval vs. non-fixing changes

[Alphons van Werven]

Kevin Golding wrote:

> and about the same time someone did a blanket update of RUN_DEPENDS in
> my ports. Including a PORTREVISION bump. It's easy to argue that's a
> very trivial change that doesn't needs maintainer involvement, but it
> also impacted my day.
[snip]
> Had I known about the blanket update I could've rolled that into my
> updates or something, but it was just suddenly there. There was no
> public warning of that change coming

Maintainers are already notified by e-mail of commits resulting from PRs
because they are put on the CC list. Maybe it's just me, but I think it
would be very nice if maintainers were *always* automagically notified of
*any* commits to their ports, including those subject to blanket approval.

With any luck, such notifications are received in time to prevent (or at
least limit) wasted time such as in the above case. Moreover, keeping
maintainers informed also eliminates having to wonder "Ey, what's this
'ere then?" the next time they look at their ports. And finally, I'd
surmise it would also help keeping maintainers abreast of developments in
the ports infrastructure in general.

I know that the PR notifications come from BugZilla and not from SVN, so
what I don't know is how feasible it is rig up something like this, but I
do know that I for one would quite appreciate something along these lines.

Fonz (bla bla bla, something about two cents, bla bla bla)

-- 
A.J. "Fonz" van Werven
mailsig: Ob technicas difficultates, lux in fine cuniculum non operatur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20160628/b93d2937/attachment.sig>