Self committing... allowed or not?

Baptiste Daroussin bapt at
Sun Jul 19 16:52:18 UTC 2015

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> 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> 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:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.))

I haven't missed the --use-ldap dependency, openldap does respect USE_OPENSSL as
well so even if the situation is quite "broken" dealing with openssl, my commit
reduces the inpact on seafile.

In fact what I am working on is enforcing openssl (or libressl at user choice)
from ports directly (which is why I worked on the ports in the first place -
after someone complained on IRC that one month after the ticket being created
nothing happened).

Best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list