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

[Jason Unovitch]

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 04:04:24PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote:
> 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.

With the submission already in I feel it's a bit discouraging to get a
PR rejected because it's "only" the one change to pass on MAINTAINER.
Perhaps it's a bit optimistic to hope one would take MAINTAINER always
intending to take care of a port but it's a reasonable enough request
IMO to grant it once they do.