svn commit: r307457 - head/Mk

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:22:47AM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 11:12, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:08:06AM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >> On 15 November 2012 09:36, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> > New Revision: 307457
> >> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/307457
> >> >
> >> > Log:
> >> >   Add SOCKS and STROKE options standard descriptions.
> >>
> >> Can portmgr please make it more clear what is and isn't permitted
> >> during a feature freeze?
> >> http://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/implementation.html would seem to say
> >> that this commit is not allowed (any commit to bsd.*.mk) but I've seen
> >> already a few commits to this file.
> >
> > Oops, technically you're right, sorry, didn't catch that *any* part.  On
> > the other hand, I do not think this particular commit can break anything,
> > plus we already had branched.  I can grep -R just to make sure.
> 
> To be clear:
> 
> I want portmgr to clarify this. I *don't* want this to be disallowed.
> 
> The problem is that there isn't any document that is actually being followed
> that says "this is okay, but that isn't".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Eitan Adler
> Source, Ports, Doc committer
> Bugmeister, Ports Security teams

Everything can't be written in a policy, or that would be so long that noone
will actually read it.

We expect people to have some common sense. The main reason for this freeze is
to be able to have clean packages for the release and we don't want any commit
to break the tree so that we are sure to have the cleanest packages tree possible.

So before committing ask yourself "does it ever has a chance to be able to break
things?"

Modifying something that can potentially have an inpact on the ports building
process is definitly prohibited, doing a sweep commit is prohibited,
modifying the license framework is prohibited in the sense that it can act on
restricted informations and thus inpact lots of ports etc, we can't list all.

But modifying options descriptions or adding some new can't have any inpact so
obviously it is feature safe.

Sure we need some policy, but please, can we avoid too much bureaucracy and trust
the common sense? I think in that parcitular case of ports freeze the rules are
quite clear, and if you have a single doubt just send a mail requesting for a
portmgr approval.

regards,
bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20121115/1f489b71/attachment.sig>