Hi! > > In that special case > > > > http://www.freshports.org/archivers/quazip/ > > > > shows that the update was done after the maintainer failed to approve > > the update. So in this particular case informing him might be > > superfluous.
> Well, I am obviously not much trained in reading the commit history. I > would conclude from the last entry "17 Mar 2014 15:54:23" and "Approved > by: maintainer timeout (nivit, >4 weeks)" that the maintainer did not > approve the commit and thus the commit remained untested. The committer probably did test it, but probably had no previous quazip installation to run into the problem. > Can one > conclude from this that the maintainer is aware of problems without > reporting them? No -- this meant that someone told the maintainer to check the PR, but he failed to react. Why he failed to react (probably overload 8-} does not allow one to draw conclusions on his consent/dissent or anything else 8-} > I cannot read that the maintainer "failed to approve". Correct, the 'maintainer timeout' only says: He had time to react and failed to react. > Or can I assume for sure every port maintainer has subscribed to > this mailing list? You can't assume that. So, if you see problems, a mail directly to the maintainer is one way, submitting a PR is another way to handle it. This list is yet another way to get feedback on the issue. The best way it to submit a PR, because then the state of the problem can be tracked. -- p...@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 6 years to go ! _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
