Self committing... allowed or not?

[Michelle Sullivan]

Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2015, at 14:02, Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net> wrote:
>   
>> please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't self committing (those with the
>> commit bit committing their own patches without QA/review/adding
>> patchfiles to the PR) against the rules?... or is it just a free-for-all
>> now?
>>     
>
> If they are the maintainer, it is OK by definition.  Otherwise, approval
> from either the maintainer or portmgr@ is needed.
>
> However, a number of people are on vacation, and they have notified
> other developers that is OK to fix their ports while they are away.
> Within reason, of course. :-)
>
> In any case, which specific ports are you worried about?
>
> -Dimitry
>
>   
Here's the case and the three referenced commits:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199265

And I know the top-level dependency will now break other things because
of a minor detail that the committer did not take into account... That
said I don't know if any other dependencies on it exist (so therefore it
might not break anything else - however I am fairly sure it wasn't
checked by the committer because of the speed and absoluteness of the
change) because I don't need it/use it myself... but that is not the
point.  I was 'just lucky' to come across this change process as I was
not looking for anything, just happened to be in the right place at the
right time to see it, and considering the hoops use plebs (those without
the commit bit) have to jump through I thought it was rather ironic that
3 separate ports were changed, no testing was recorded in the PR as we
the plebs are required to do, no patches uploaded as we the plebs have
to do and no review as we the plebs have to have... 

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/