cvs commit: ports/devel/apr Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/devel/apr/files patch-apr-util_build_dbm.m4 patch-apr-util_configure patch-apr_hints.m4

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2008-Jul-05 20:02:40 +0000, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at crodrigues.org> wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>> The patch in the PR actually used Tools/scripts/bump_version.pl to bump 
>> all those ports, but it was for *some* reason not committed,
>
>I chose to err on the side of caution, and submit separate PR's to the
>different port maintainers, since I don't like to blindly commit to
>ports which I know nothing about.

Except that when you change a shared library ABI or version, you need
to bump all dependent ports at the same time.  I accept that you (as
committer) are accepting final responsibility for commits that you
perform.  This means ensuring that what you commit encompasses _all_
the changes needed - committing too little is just as bad as
committing too much or an incorrect patch.

>I hate it when people blindly commit to APR, so I don't want to do
>the same thing to other ports.

No-one is asking you to blindly commit anything.  If you weren't sure
about a PR then you should have discussed it with the originator and
maybe with the maintainers of the other ports affected.

>While you submit many good ports patches, I don't really trust your
>track record.  If you had an actual ports commit bit, then you
>would have more credibility with me to submit mega-patches which
>affect many ports.  If someone who knows you better can sponsor
>you for a commit bit, then you can take on more of this responsibility
>for yourself, instead of dumping mega-patches for committers to pick up

IMO, this is an unwarranted slur on Philip.  There may be a variety of
reasons why he does not have a commit bit and equating trustworthiness
with a commit bit is demeaning to the large number of developers and
ports maintainers who also don't have commit bits.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all/attachments/20080708/3c375061/attachment-0001.pgp