Self committing... allowed or not?

[Michelle Sullivan]

Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 05:19:08PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>   
>> 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... 
>>
>>     
> do you appear to know the said ports were broken (segfault) at startup because
> of various libssl mixup, they have been tested and fixed. if another issue
> appears on those ports I will fix them.
>   
I'm guessing you missed the '--use-ldap' in the top level dependency... 
I'm assuming you know there are issues with openldap and the use base vs
use ports issue... particularly with dependent ports and incompatible
options... your 'fix' quite possibly fixed one problem and caused
another (not your fault as it happens - but an unintended consequence of
an unchecked change... if you want to bring order and stability this is
not the way to proceed.  (That said neither is laborious change control
and peer review, but some is needed and the rules should apply to
everyone or there will be more chaos.))

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