Self committing... allowed or not?
michelle at sorbs.net
Sun Jul 19 21:20:15 UTC 2015
Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> +--On 19 juillet 2015 22:30:45 +0200 Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net>
> |> 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).
> | So you're calling this maintainer timeout?
> No, he's either fixing that was broken,
So you're saying anything that is deemed broken can be changed/fixed
without the maintainer's comment or approval?
> or doing some infrastructure
Not the case here (had it been I would not have made comment.)
> there's no need for the maintainer to be involved for this, as
Blanket approval for most ports applies to these types of fixes:
Most infrastructure changes to a port (that is, modernizing, but
not changing the functionality). For example, converting to
staging, |USE_GMAKE| to |USES=gmake|, the new |LIB_DEPENDS| format...
Trivial and /tested/ build and runtime fixes.
Note the 'tested' (I didn't italic it) ... the fix was tested for the PR
(we have the committers word on that, no evidence of that though - which
is a requirement for the plebs like me.)
The testing I am sure didn't check a dependency was not broken, only the
target port was now 'fixed'.
The port explicitly set OpenSSL from ports - this was probably a bad
thing, the change removed that, not a bad thing, but also not a trivial
change (as it changes the default build behavior) and testing of other
things that depended on this port was not done as far as anyone can
tell, which means it could have broken something and doesn't follow the
Look, I am trying to point out here, there are rules and procedures, I
believe they were not followed, and I believe they should have been.
More information about the freebsd-ports