On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
In fact I've proposed combining openmaintainer and nomaintainer before. But
would this actually get us anything useful?
For one, it would save the manual work of reminding devs that forget.
For another, it would be
Daniel J. Luke writes:
On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
In fact I've proposed combining openmaintainer and nomaintainer before. But
would this actually get us anything useful?
For one, it would save the manual work of reminding devs that forget.
For
On Aug 8, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
Ryan Schmidt writes:
On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
How would you produce that list if nomaintainer and openmaintainer were
combined into a single value?
Thinking
Ryan Schmidt writes:
On Aug 8, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
Ryan Schmidt writes:
On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
How would you produce that list if nomaintainer and openmaintainer
were combined into a single
Daniel J. Luke writes:
On Jul 25, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
The maintainer is supposed to hold the consolidated knowledge of that
software as relates to building it within MacPorts, and may have very good
On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Sean Farley wrote:
One of my points is that there is no
real difference between 'openmaintainer' and 'nomaintainer'. One has
other devs listed, the other does not, so why not combine the names?
It's easy enough to see that if 'openmaintainer' is listed and no one
On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
How would you produce that list if nomaintainer and openmaintainer were
combined into a single value?
Thinking about it a bit more, I guess the answer is that it is a regular
expression
Ryan Schmidt writes:
On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
How would you produce that list if nomaintainer and openmaintainer were
combined into a single value?
Thinking about it a bit more, I guess the answer is that it is a
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
I agree we have a problem with maintainers disappearing and it taking some
time for us to notice and react. But we do have a port abandonment
procedure, and I would instead focus on improvements to that procedure, and
better maintainer
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Frank Schima m...@macports.org wrote:
We definitely need a better process for determining which maintainers are
inactive. That was the basis of my idea of a short and simple mass email. I
suspect we have lots of dead email addresses which will be easy to
On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
Yes, so why have the exclusivity?
The maintainer is supposed to hold the consolidated knowledge of that software
as relates to building it within MacPorts, and may have very good reasons for
why a port does or does not do something and doesn't
On Jul 25, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
The maintainer is supposed to hold the consolidated knowledge of that
software as relates to building it within MacPorts, and may have very good
reasons for why a port
* On 25.07.2014 01:21 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
[...]
# TIMESTAMP: openmaintainer prohibited.
[...]
I do not want to have to update a timestamp in every portfile periodically.
That's just busywork. We have other ways to see if a maintainer
On Jul 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Mihai Moldovan io...@ionic.de wrote:
* On 25.07.2014 03:50 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
+1 for this too. I have at least one non-openmaintainer port that went ~9
years between upstream releases - I'm not going to remember to check in a
mostly meaningless
On Jul 25, 2014, at 5:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
However, non-openmaintainer ports are required to insert a comment in the
Portfile, reading something along those lines:
# TIMESTAMP: openmaintainer prohibited.
* On 25.07.2014 04:55 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Jul 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Mihai Moldovan io...@ionic.de wrote:
It is busywork. However, I find it very unlikely that a port doesn't get
changed at least once every 6 months. Maybe not for updates, but because
dependencies require a revision
Hi all,
I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship for
new ports.
I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when contributing
a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned ports. But is it
usual to commit new ports
On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
Hi all,
I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship
for new ports.
I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when
contributing a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned
David Evans writes:
On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
Hi all,
I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship
for new ports.
I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when
contributing a new port and that nomantainer is more
On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have
every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could
set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a port with
their name on
A compromise here could be, instead of getting rid of openmaintainer
entirely, or keeping it opt-in like it currently is, we could make it
opt-out instead. There are two ways we could do this:
1. When committing new ports submitted by users without commit access, make
it a policy to automatically
Daniel J. Luke writes:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have
every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could
set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
I, for one, appreciate the ability to specify which ports I don't care if
people apply patches to vs. ports where I'm very careful about
updating/keeping things from breaking.
Well, the problem is people still commit on
* On 24.07.2014 11:49 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
Unless you've
left comments in your portfiles, then there's no auditable way to
maintain your ports if, say, you stop being a maintainer.
I can't parse this sentence. no auditable way what are you auditing?
Don't nitpick. :)
He means that there
Daniel J. Luke writes:
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley s...@macports.org wrote:
I, for one, appreciate the ability to specify which ports I don't care if
people apply patches to vs. ports where I'm very careful about
updating/keeping things from breaking.
Well, the problem is
Mihai Moldovan writes:
* On 24.07.2014 11:49 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
Unless you've
left comments in your portfiles, then there's no auditable way to
maintain your ports if, say, you stop being a maintainer.
I can't parse this sentence. no auditable way what are you auditing?
Don't
26 matches
Mail list logo
