Re: [23415] trunk/dports/archivers/zlib/Portfile
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM -0800 wrote:
Revision [ http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/23415 ]23415 Author landonf@macports.org Date 2007-03-31 10:25:27 -0700 (Sat, 31 Mar 2007)
Log Message
Claiming ownership of my port entirely.
Are there ports where you are listed maintainer that you shouldn't be? I think to be sure someone respects your maintainership, you should make sure that you are only listed as maintainer one ones you really actively maintain. I really wan't aware you were still active and I supposed there were a bunch of ports that you used to maintain and currently didn't but never formally relinquished. For example, I just updated openldap days ago and you are listed as maintainer. But there have been 3 verifiable bugs filed against it for ages and the port was pretty outdated. In my view, MacPorts only keeps functioning because of the efforts of a few that sometimes need to bend the rules with some judgement, because there aren't enough people concerned with fixing bugs that we can reasonably expect those people to adhere to all the rules we set up. If we had more people doing it we could more closely adhere to the standards we've setup. A bureaucratic system with few people doesn't work very well when those few have to choose between getting things done for others and maximizing their volunteer time. I'm not criticizing or complaining, I'm just saying how things appear to me because, frankly, I bend the rules a lot because I don't see another way right now. The project seems to have more users than it once did and tickets are opened faster, but it doesn't seem like there are many responsive maintainers so that we rely on a few consistent bug chasers and committers that sometimes bend the rules to keep from getting swamped by tickets. Mark
On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:20:56AM -0700, markd@macports.org wrote:
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM -0800 wrote:
Revision [ http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/23415 ]23415 Author landonf@macports.org Date 2007-03-31 10:25:27 -0700 (Sat, 31 Mar 2007)
Log Message
Claiming ownership of my port entirely.
Are there ports where you are listed maintainer that you shouldn't be? I think to be sure someone respects your maintainership, you should make sure that you are only listed as maintainer one ones you really actively maintain. I really wan't aware you were still active and I supposed there were a bunch of ports that you used to maintain and currently didn't but never formally relinquished. For example, I just updated openldap days ago and you are listed as maintainer. But there have been 3 verifiable bugs filed against it for ages and the port was pretty outdated.
In my view, MacPorts only keeps functioning because of the efforts of a few that sometimes need to bend the rules with some judgement, because there aren't enough people concerned with fixing bugs that we can reasonably expect those people to adhere to all the rules we set up. If we had more people doing it we could more closely adhere to the standards we've setup. A bureaucratic system with few people doesn't work very well when those few have to choose between getting things done for others and maximizing their volunteer time.
I'm not criticizing or complaining, I'm just saying how things appear to me because, frankly, I bend the rules a lot because I don't see another way right now. The project seems to have more users than it once did and tickets are opened faster, but it doesn't seem like there are many responsive maintainers so that we rely on a few consistent bug chasers and committers that sometimes bend the rules to keep from getting swamped by tickets.
There was a rule about bugs being free for anyone to fix/patch/commit after notifying the port maintainer and a 72 hour timeout. Has that been removed, or just lost to the fog of time? Is that a rule that people are comfortable with? -eric
Eric Hall <opendarwin.org@darkart.com> on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 11:32 AM -0800 wrote:
There was a rule about bugs being free for anyone to fix/patch/commit after notifying the port maintainer and a 72 hour timeout. Has that been removed, or just lost to the fog of time? Is that a rule that people are comfortable with?
I'm comfortable with it, but the problem is that I think we have a large number of maintainers listed who are no longer maintaining. So while I'm comfortable with the rule above, and it is easy enough to remember, if I see 5 old bugs that I could fix in 15 minutes and I have time right now but I think the probability of any response from a maintainer (let alone a fast one) is very low, then will the community (and myself) be better served by sending out emails from trac and waiting on responses and tracking all that stuff, or just fixing them? If it is a complex or critial port, then I'll not touch it, but if it is a lesser used broken port and/or a minor update then I might. If I know the maintainer is responsive then I'll definitely cc in trac and not worry about it after that. So I think the key detail is not the rule above, but that even responsive maintainers may not be able to respond in 72 hours and so few formally drop maintainership when they stop maintaining that our whole framework of rules about committing is shaky if taken too seriously. Mark
[resending from a subscribed address] On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:56 AM, markd@macports.org wrote:
Eric Hall <opendarwin.org@darkart.com> on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 11:32 AM -0800 wrote:
There was a rule about bugs being free for anyone to fix/patch/ commit after notifying the port maintainer and a 72 hour timeout. Has that been removed, or just lost to the fog of time? Is that a rule that people are comfortable with?
I'm comfortable with it, but the problem is that I think we have a large number of maintainers listed who are no longer maintaining. So while I'm comfortable with the rule above, and it is easy enough to remember, if I see 5 old bugs that I could fix in 15 minutes and I have time right now but I think the probability of any response from a maintainer (let alone a fast one) is very low, then will the community (and myself) be better served by sending out emails from trac and waiting on responses and tracking all that stuff, or just fixing them? If it is a complex or critial port, then I'll not touch it, but if it is a lesser used broken port and/or a minor update then I might. If I know the maintainer is responsive then I'll definitely cc in trac and not worry about it after that. So I think the key detail is not the rule above, but that even responsive maintainers may not be able to respond in 72 hours and so few formally drop maintainership when they stop maintaining that our whole framework of rules about committing is shaky if taken too seriously.
I agree that the 72 hour rule is stifling when you've got a small bug to fix, or a simple version bump. I don't think it's entirely inappropriate for large changes, though. -landonf
On Mar 31, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Landon Fuller wrote:
[resending from a subscribed address]
On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:56 AM, markd@macports.org wrote:
Eric Hall <opendarwin.org@darkart.com> on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 11:32 AM -0800 wrote:
There was a rule about bugs being free for anyone to fix/patch/ commit after notifying the port maintainer and a 72 hour timeout. Has that been removed, or just lost to the fog of time? Is that a rule that people are comfortable with?
I'm comfortable with it, but the problem is that I think we have a large number of maintainers listed who are no longer maintaining. So while I'm comfortable with the rule above, and it is easy enough to remember, if I see 5 old bugs that I could fix in 15 minutes and I have time right now but I think the probability of any response from a maintainer (let alone a fast one) is very low, then will the community (and myself) be better served by sending out emails from trac and waiting on responses and tracking all that stuff, or just fixing them? If it is a complex or critial port, then I'll not touch it, but if it is a lesser used broken port and/or a minor update then I might. If I know the maintainer is responsive then I'll definitely cc in trac and not worry about it after that. So I think the key detail is not the rule above, but that even responsive maintainers may not be able to respond in 72 hours and so few formally drop maintainership when they stop maintaining that our whole framework of rules about committing is shaky if taken too seriously.
I agree that the 72 hour rule is stifling when you've got a small bug to fix, or a simple version bump. I don't think it's entirely inappropriate for large changes, though.
I've been using the rule that I'll wait 72 hours for my first bug/ patch to be acted upon, but if I have follow up ones on the same Portfile and there was never a response to the first report, than any successive ones I'll commit immediately. Regards, Blair -- Blair Zajac, Ph.D. <blair@orcaware.com> Subversion training, consulting and support http://www.orcaware.com/svn/
participants (4)
-
Blair Zajac
-
Eric Hall
-
Landon Fuller
-
markd＠macports.org