Approving a patch

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 4/03/2015 9:05 PM, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 4/03/2015 9:00 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 March 2015, at 22:45, Kubilay Kocak <koobs at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Canonically and preferred:
>>>
>>> Set maintainer-approval flag to + *on the attachment/patch*.
>>>
>>> The maintainer-feedback flag is at the issue/bug scope, not the
>>> attachment/patch scope.
>>>
>>> This of course requires the maintainer-approval flag was set to ? with
>>> your email as the value first.
>>>
>>> Currently this is not automatic, but *should be* if there is an
>>> attachment of type: patch in the issue. I'll create an issue for that
>>> now for bugmeister@ to look into addressing.
>>>
>>> Only in cases where maintainer-approval is *not* already set to"?", is
>>> using the maintainer-feedback flag + comment flow OK.
>>>
>>> Setting maintainer-feedback is ambiguous, and is used to prove
>>> 'acknowledgement' of an issue or question.
>>>
>>> This is especially the case when there are multiple version of patches,
>>> or patches from multiple contributors. In future it will be used to
>>> derive "maintainer timeouts" to kick issues along, and open them up for
>>> someone else to make a decision on.
>>>
>>> tldr; Set the maintainer-approval flag to +
>>>
>>
>> Thanks to all who replied.  I found and set the maintainer-feedback flag at the issue/bug scope.  I couldn’t find any similar flag at the attachment/patch scope.  Nothing there was really applicable.
>>
> 
> Which issue?
> 

Doug,

Ignore that, I found it:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198224

I've set the maintainer-approval flag to "+" for you.

Note: this is what I meant in my on-list reply by:

"This of course requires the maintainer-approval flag was set to ? with
your email as the value first."

In your issues case, the flag hadn't been set yet.

I've created a new issue on this exact point, so as to make setting the
maintainer-approval flag automatic. You can follow it here:

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198271

--
Regards,

Kubilay Kocak
Bugmeister