Re: Fix in branch 2025Q3 without a need to fix in main
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:01:08 UTC
Am 19.07.25 um 14:47 schrieb Matthias Andree: > Am 19.07.25 um 14:24 schrieb Rainer Hurling: >> Dear committers, >> I have a question about a specific case that I haven't encountered >> before: >> >> My port math/saga is at version 9.9.0 in the main branch and at >> version 9.8.2 in the 2025Q3 branch. In version 9.8.2, a patch was >> forgotten upstream during the release, which means that 9.8.2 now >> fails to build in the package builders. (Interestingly, I can build >> the version in Poudriere.) I would now like to commit the appropriate >> patch only for version 9.8.2 in the 2025Q3 branch, as main in version >> 9.9.0 already contains this patch. >> >> When I try to push the commit, I get the following message: >> >> ================================================================ >> remote: rhurlin, you are pushing a commit to 2025Q3 which does >> remote: not seem to be a cherry-pick. >> remote: >> remote: If you did a cherry-pick, you probably forgot to add `-x`, >> remote: make sure you do run `git cherry-pick -x <hash>`. >> remote: >> remote: If you did a direct commit, make sure it was approved first, >> and then run: >> remote: git push --push-option=direct-quarterly-commit >> remote: ================================================================ >> >> Do I actually need approval in the case described, and if so, from whom? >> >> Or can I simply push directly with the argument ‘--push-option=direct- >> quarterly-commit’ instead? > > Hi Rainer, > > * usual restrictions for comments apply (so mentees get their mentor's > approval), as does the usual quarterly policies that I'll word as (1) > don't break it" and (2) don't commit breaking changes or changes that > surprise users. > > We lifted the requirement to seek further approval shy of five years > ago, see the porter's handbook: > >> 22.6.1. What is the procedure to request authorization for merging a >> commit to the quarterly branch? >> >> As of November 30, 2020, there is no need to seek explicit approval to >> commit to the quarterly branch. > <https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/committers-guide/#ports-qa-quarterly> > > * beyond that, if you weren't the port's maintainer (which you are for > math/saga), there is a "just-fix-it" blanket approval of portmgr@ also > applies to unbreak a broken port, and if it doesn't generate packages on > the package builder, it's broken. Assuming you've tested the fix. See > <https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/committers-guide/#ports-qa-misc- > blanket-approval> > > HTH > Hi Matthias, Thank you very much for your reply and your helpful comments. Yes, I tested the patch before committing it. But as I already wrote, even the unpatched version of math/saga v9.8.2 compiled without any problems in Poudriere and in an unclean environment on my (CURRENT) boxes ... Best wishes, Rainer