svn commit: r416439 - head/sysutils/fusefs-ntfs

[Cy Schubert]

In message <d4a6997a-b5ae-f368-5843-cb0f7596c223 at mat.cc>, Mathieu Arnold 
writes
:
> Le 01/04/2017 à 23:58, Jan Beich a écrit :
> > Mathieu Arnold <mat at mat.cc> writes:
> >
> >> Le 01/04/2017 à 22:20, Cy Schubert a écrit :
> >>
> >>> In message <201606052250.u55Mo44E016592 at repo.freebsd.org>, Jason Unovitch
>  
> >>> write
> >>> s:
> >>>> Author: junovitch
> >>>> Date: Sun Jun  5 22:50:04 2016
> >>>> New Revision: 416439
> >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/416439
> >>>>
> >>>> Log:
> >>>>   sysutils/fusefs-ntfs: pass MAINTAINER to submitter
> >>>>   
> >>>>   PR:		209976
> >>>>   Submitted by:	DuÃ
¡an Vejnovič <freebsd at dussan.org>
> >>> Is there a reason we grant maintainer on a simple maintainer request? It 
> >>> used to be that a MAINTAINER was given maintainership only when a patch w
> as 
> >>> submitted not a patch to just change MAINTAINER. Has this policy changed?
> >> The policy has not changed, those commits should not happen, but, well,
> >> they do.
> > Where is this policy documented? I'm sure I've made the same mistake
> > more than once in the past.
> 
> I'm not sure it penciled down, we try to not commit only maintainer
> changes, but require patches that actually update the port.

I recall it being discussed on the mailing lists a number of times. It 
probably should be written down somewhere. (Kind of like at $JOB where 
standards are agreed upon but not written down in the ops guide or on 
scarepoint.


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org

	The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.