svn commit: r521892 - in head/math: . R-cran-alabama

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 03/01/2020 13:01, Devin Teske wrote:
>
>> On Jan 3, 2020, at 06:50, Adriaan de Groot <adridg at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, 3 January 2020 09:36:28 CET Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 12:56:48AM +0000, Devin Teske wrote:
>>>> Author: dteske (src committer)
>>> As stated by this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you are not a ports committer.  So you
>>> are required to get approval, and state the approval in your commits,
>>> saying it has been reviewed is not enough.
>>>
>>>>   Reviewed by:	mat, imp (previous revision)
>>>>   Differential Revision:	https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22675
>> Question for mat@, just to be clear: the issue here is (only) that there
>> should be an extra line in the commit message,
>> 	Approved by: mat
>> or possibly
>> 	Approved by: mat (mentor)
>> as described in the committer's guide [1].
>>
>> The Phab review was approved (accepted), so it's just the documentation of
>> process?
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/
>> commit-log-message.html
>>
> The process is broken currently as I’ve been denied a ports commit bit and my mentorship is null and void for a ports bit.
>
> I do not not know how to navigate such a situation.
>
> In this case, would review be akin to approval and thus, whomsoever reviewed it that is an active ports committer is therefore the approver?

Active committers can commit to other parts of the tree if they get 
approval from other active committers in that branch. It works both 
ways: src committers can (exceptionally) do ports or doc commits, and 
the other way around. However, a phabricator review is not an approval 
unless it is explicit.

Just my $0.02,

Pedro.

> —
> Devin