svn commit: r504590 - in head/net: samba46 samba47 samba48

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:02:04AM +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 3/07/2019 1:48 am, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > The correct way out of this mess is what had been said before on numerous
> > occasion: stable/security/quarterly branches should be operated by ports-
> > secteam@ or however it's called, not by the individual committers.  This
> > would solve *all* the problems of what and how to merge because dedicated
> > team would know better and coordinate its action only within itself.
> 
> What and how to merge is obvious, it just hasn't been communicated
> effectively, consistently or clearly enough, unless individuals ask on
> their own accord, which benefits noone other than that individual.
> 
> Not only does ports-secteam, or any other separate team not have an
> understanding of the commits/software/changes that the committer of that
> change presumably did, but they also couldn't scale effectively enough
> to do so even if we wanted them to. It's not ports-secteams job beyond
> cursory review/approval on security only changes. They have said this
> themselves.

I understand that teams are understaffed, but I simply don't see how
this branches thing can work when they're not managed by a dedicated, be
it small or large group of people (not necessarily secteam@ or portmgr@).

Right now I really don't see *any* benefit of why would I want to track
quarterly branches because the way they're currently managed makes them
no more stable, better, or less chaotic than -head, only more stale.

./danfe