svn commit: r530892 - in head: benchmarks/dbench benchmarks/httperf databases/cdb databases/soci devel/py-python-gflags dns/dlint irc/libircclient multimedia/cclive net-mgmt/whatmask news/py-yenc p...

[Yuri]

On 2020-04-06 10:04, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>    Partially revert r530801
>    
>    The maintainer reset rule was not applied correctly. jlaffaye's ports
>    are reassigned back to him, with the exception of lang/go where both
>    quantity and length of timeouts made the reset appropriate and
>    necessary.


How was the rule not applied correctly?


Your e-mail to developers@ on 2018-06-14 08:01 PST announced the new rule:

> It has been policy for quite some time that if a port has had three
> consecutive timeouts, or a timeout longer than 3 months, then
> maintainership on that port can be reset, at the committer's
> discretion.
> 
> The policy now states that, if timeouts occur as above, ALL ports
> owned by that maintainer can be reset, again at the discretion of the
> committer.


1. As mentioned in r530801, there were multiple timeouts, several of 
which were longer than 3 months:

>  * www/py-scgi: bug#244982 - jlaffaye (maintainer timeout; 14 days)
>  * textproc/discount: bug#244981 - jlaffaye (maintainer timeout; 14 days)
>  * devel/py-python-gflags: bug#244965 - jlaffaye (maintainer timeout; 14 days)
>  * lang/go: bug#244783, https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24122 (maintainer timeout; 14 days)
>  * news/py-yenc: bug#239309 - jlaffaye (maintainer's timeout; 8+ months)
>  * irc/libircclient: bug#221567 - jlaffaye (maintainer's timeout; 2.5 years)

Also, r528577, r528576, r527627, r507340 had patches for his ports with maintainer timeouts of 2 weeks and longer.


2. This maintainer is also uncontactable:
* the last time he replied to any bugzilla PR was on 2019-07-11 for bug#239130
* the material comment to his commit r528785 went unanswered, and this change has been later reverted by a new maintainer of lang/go.
* my numerous attempts to e-mail him all went unanswered


3. You yourself agreed twice in your personal e-mail messages that this commit has been made according to the rules.

It appears from the above that conditions set in the rules were met and exceeded. All additional facts and your own opinion from your e-mails also point in the direction that this commit was done properly.


Why was it reverted, and why are you now saying that the rule was not applied correctly?


Thanks,
Yuri