svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:16:46PM +0100, Philippe Audéoud wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote:
> 
> > On 12/2/2013 15:52, Philippe Audéoud wrote:
> > > On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You are misrepresenting me.  I follow the rules, but they are crappy
> > >> rules so I'm complaining about them.  Rene did not break any rules that
> > >> I am aware of.  (You conveniently did not show me where this "rule" is
> > >> documented, nor why you think port maintenance privilege extends past
> > >> the expire deadline).
> > 
> > > 
> > > 4. Respect existing maintainers if listed.
> > > 
> > > Many parts of FreeBSD are not "owned" in the sense that any specific
> > > individual will jump up and yell if you commit a change to "their" area,
> > > but it still pays to check first. One convention we use is to put a
> > > maintainer line in the Makefile for any package or subtree which is
> > > being actively maintained by one or more people; see
> > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/policies.html
> > > for documentation on this. Where sections of code have several
> > > maintainers, commits to affected areas by one maintainer need to be
> > > reviewed by at least one other maintainer. In cases where the
> > > "maintainer-ship" of something is not clear, you can also look at the
> > > repository logs for the file(s) in question and see if someone has been
> > > working recently or predominantly in that area.
> > > 
> > > Other areas of FreeBSD fall under the control of someone who manages an
> > > overall category of FreeBSD evolution, such as internationalization or
> > > networking. See http://www.FreeBSD.org/administration.html for more
> > > information on this.
> > > 
> > > from :
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/rules.html
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Clearly it does not address port deletion specifically.
> > 2. I openly questioned whether or not the MAINTAINER line expired with
> > the port.  I believe it should.  After the expiry date, it should be
> > treated as if MAINTAINER=ports at freebsd.org (meaning anybody at all can
> > delete it if they feel like it.)
> > 3. This is the clause that needs updating.  It gives too much power to
> > the listed MAINTAINER.  It could and should allow others to fix the port
> > if it restores the port to how the maintainer intended.  People are
> > abusing this clause and the result is that ports that could be fixed
> > correctly on the spot are not fixed in a timely fashion (sometimes
> > delaying weeks or months or perhaps never getting fixed).
> > 
> > Some of this "power" needs to be clawed back.  I will fully support any
> > maintainer who is angry at another committer than "fixes" their port
> > incorrectly though.  I think the benefits of allowing others to fix
> > ports-with-listed-maintainers outweighs the negatives by a lot.
> > 
> 
> Sure but it has to be written. We are both complaining about this point,
> maybe we can work together and suggest somes rules/reflexion to
> portmgr at .
> 
> -- 
> Philippe Audéoud

Yes please :)
-------------- 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-head/attachments/20131202/cdce4c69/attachment.sig>