> That's one of things our existing 72-hour timeout period is for. It's not
> specific to patchfiles; it's for any issue that the maintainer hasn't
> responded to.
Okay, thanks Ryan :)
> On 22 Oct 2018, at 06:32, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> And yes, we have a huge number of people assigned as maintainers who
>> no longer maintain the ports. We really need to clean up the list in
>> order to reflect the reality.
>
> It is indeed a problem that we have many ports which claim to be
On Oct 21, 2018, at 12:46, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> What I see in MacPorts is that, with the exception of a small number
> of critical ports (where breaking it would cause serious issues to
> lots of users), in most ports having the maintainer assigned is more
> of a responsibility and
> On Oct 21, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
>
> They currently have 28 issues open for formulas. We have ...
> thousands? (Last time I checked it was somewhere between 4k and 5k.)
> Disclaimer: I don't know what their policy on closing the issues is.
There is a “Stale Bot” that
Hi,
I would find it useful if we try to "rewrite" rules about how
maintainership is supposed to work, to make them less ambiguous and to
reflect how the majority of us would like to see it working in the
future. (We do need to take differences between the old svn and the
new github workflow into
> On 18 Oct 2018, at 9:25 pm, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
>
> On 2018-10-18, at 1:18 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
>>
>> Beyond the above, not really. If it is indeed agreed that some package
>> version updates are allowed under the ‘minor’ tag, then I think the best you
>> can do is just
On 2018-10-18, at 1:18 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
>
> Beyond the above, not really. If it is indeed agreed that some package
> version updates are allowed under the ‘minor’ tag, then I think the best you
> can do is just state that, and acknowledge that the determination of what is
> or is
>>
>> That is understood. Either we allow ‘minor’ version updates directly, and
>> accept that there will always be disagreements on what this means exactly,
>> and sometimes a ‘minor’ update will be made that turns out not to be so
>> minor, or we don’t allow any version updates under the
On 2018-10-17 09:42, Christopher Jones wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2018, at 1:17 am, Rainer Müller wrote:
>>
>> What you describe would be the process without openmaintainer. With
>> openmaintainer, "minor updates" can be pushed directly by other project
>> members.
>>
>> I would always assume that a
Hi,
> On 17 Oct 2018, at 1:17 am, Rainer Müller wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-16 10:06, Chris Jones wrote:
>> On 16/10/18 07:37, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote:
On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:18 pm, Chris Jones >>> hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2018, at 10:34 pm, Leonardo Brondani
On 2018-10-16 10:06, Chris Jones wrote:
> On 16/10/18 07:37, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote:
>>> On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:18 pm, Chris Jones >> hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
On 15 Oct 2018, at 10:34 pm, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel >>> at macports.org> wrote:
I'm a committer, and if I'm
Please point me to where this is documented ? i.e. where is it stated
that openmaintainer allows revision changes. This appears to be one of
the issues here since not everyone, myself included, agrees with you.
The only statement I have found is
"If a port's maintainer contains the address
,
Hi,
On 16/10/18 07:37, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote:
On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:18 pm, Chris Jones
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2018, at 10:34 pm, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel at macports.org> wrote:
I'm a committer, and if I'm doing a trivial bump of an openmaintainer
port I'll push it directly.
On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:18 pm, Chris Jones wrote:
On 15 Oct 2018, at 10:34 pm, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote:
I'm a committer, and if I'm doing a trivial bump of an openmaintainer port I'll
push it directly.
Depends entirely on what you consider trivial. If you consider a version update
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:16:48PM +0100, Chris Jones wrote:
Hi,
[...]
If these sorts of things aren't okay to merge pretty quickly, then
why do we have an openmaintainer designation at all? I mean, if
there's really no distinction in how you treat an openmaintainer and
a non-openmaintainer
Hi,
> On 15 Oct 2018, at 10:34 pm, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel
> wrote:
>
> My two cents:
>
> I'm a committer, and if I'm doing a trivial bump of an openmaintainer port
> I'll push it directly.
Depends entirely on what you consider trivial. If you consider a version update
a trivial bump
My two cents:
I'm a committer, and if I'm doing a trivial bump of an openmaintainer
port I'll push it directly. If I'm opening a GitHub PR for an
openmaintainer port this means that for some reason I want the
maintainer's opinion/review before it gets merged.
As a maintainer, I would be
I'll second Chris' note of thanks for MP folks keeping the PR queue short.
Since MP folks (especially Perry) have started stepping up to this task, I too
have been trying harder to do my part.
Now my US$0.02 worth and all IMHO about PR commit timeouts & why. - MLD
-Any- non-urgent fix should
Hi,
1. if the person doing the update is skilled (and at this point I
generally know the difference),
2. if they indicate that they've tested the result,
3. if it seems based on history that the listed maintainer is unlikely
to comment then or ever (and I usually guess right),
4. and that if
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:20:53 +0200 Mojca Miklavec
wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 00:10, Blair Zajac wrote:
> >
> > We could add a rule that should help a bit that openmaintainer
> > only lets people do minor version bumps, e.g. X.Y to X.(Y+1) and
> > X.Y.Z to X.Y.(Z+1). This doesn’t solve the
and so on... Do we have a guide for something like this written done
anywhere ?
"7.4.1. Non-Maintainer Port Updates" in our guide.
https://guide.macports.org/#project.update-policies.nonmaintainer
That is not what I am asking for. Specifically it does not give any
guidance on exactly what
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 09:58:59AM +0100, Chris Jones wrote:
Hi,
On 15/10/18 06:41, Joshua Root wrote:
I agree with the points in Mojca's first message in the thread.
On 2018-10-15 09:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 00:10, Blair Zajac wrote:
We could add a rule that
Hi,
On 15/10/18 06:41, Joshua Root wrote:
I agree with the points in Mojca's first message in the thread.
On 2018-10-15 09:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 00:10, Blair Zajac wrote:
We could add a rule that should help a bit that openmaintainer only lets people
do minor
I agree with the points in Mojca's first message in the thread.
On 2018-10-15 09:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 00:10, Blair Zajac wrote:
>>
>> We could add a rule that should help a bit that openmaintainer only lets
>> people do minor version bumps, e.g. X.Y to X.(Y+1) and
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 00:10, Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> We could add a rule that should help a bit that openmaintainer only lets
> people do minor version bumps, e.g. X.Y to X.(Y+1) and X.Y.Z to X.Y.(Z+1).
> This doesn’t solve the Lua 5.2 to 5.3 one, but it would prevent the Python
> 2.7 to 3.7.
We could add a rule that should help a bit that openmaintainer only lets people
do minor version bumps, e.g. X.Y to X.(Y+1) and X.Y.Z to X.Y.(Z+1). This
doesn’t solve the Lua 5.2 to 5.3 one, but it would prevent the Python 2.7 to
3.7.
Blair
> On Oct 14, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Mojca Miklavec
Hi,
This conversation comes from
https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/2785
and I wanted to bring it up to the mailing list.
In summary: Ryan objected merging openmaintainer pull requests prematurely.
I'm with Ryan on this one.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:04, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
27 matches
Mail list logo
