Re: OpenBSD development (was: What is the status of the FreeBSD development processes?)

> I do confirm that statement. OpenBSD has developers with commit
> privileges to source tree. The mailing list @tech is for where all
> developers discuss and decide. Any one with commit privileges can do
> commit patches and source code to the tree as long as it is inline
> with  project goals. Theo De Raadt is the one who says the last word
> obout what is to be released and not.

That's not entirely true. All you have to do is to look through the
commit logs.

Anyone with commit privileges can commit patches, but a commit is
reviewed *before* it is accepted into OpenBSD, which is what the "OK",
is for. The "OK" means that either Theo or someone else has reviews the
code and accepted it. Several developers can OK the code.

As far as I can tell, and this has also been confirmed on misc@,
nothing goes in without the review and the OK.

> For ports, it works differently. Anyone with commit privileges can
> commit "make files" and "patches" as long as it is posted on @ports
> and  asked for approval. So list members test the files on local
> build systems and if it is ok then it is committed.

That's right, but the issue is not about ports. The statement from core
was about the kernel and base in relation to all the problems there
where with the previous wireguard issue that went into the kernel
without reviews and later, in the last minute, pulled out because of
all the problems.

> FreeBSD has similar model for development. Developers who has commit
> privileges can commit source code, to base, ports and docs. Security
> team is responsible for overseeing the security issues. It is like
> how OpenBSD works.

No, this is definitely not correct.

Kind regards.