svn commit: r412296 - head/lang/rust

[Erwin Lansing]

> On 01 Apr 2016, at 15:06, Mathieu Arnold <mat at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> +--On 1 avril 2016 12:05:47 +0200 Thomas Zander <riggs at freebsd.org> wrote:
> | On 1 April 2016 at 11:45, Mathieu Arnold <mat at freebsd.org> wrote:
> |
> |> It is documented in the porter's handbook, where it all belongs:
> |> <https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-maintain
> |> er.html>
> |>
> |> And, it is covered by the "Trivial and tested build and runtime fixes."
> |> bullet point.
> |
> | Thanks for stepping in, but I am a 100% sure that this statement will
> | not put the case to rest. Based on this statement:
> | - John will maintain his position that this commit was trivial, tested
> | and fixes a problem *on DragonFly* and hence *is* covered by the
> | blanket
> | - I will maintain my position that this commit does *not* fix a
> | problem *on FreeBSD* and hence is *not* covered by the blanket
> |
> | I am totally fine accepting any verdict from portmgr, but I want it to
> | be inescapably clear. Please review the commit and let us know once
> | and for all: Is this particular one covered by the blanket or not?
> 
> *I* would say that you are right and it's not a FreeBSD fix, and thus, is
> not covered by the blanket.  But I don't know what portmgr as a whole
> thinks about it.

Rather than nitpick what the rules say exactly, I’d take a step back and consider how we like to work together.  On the surface, it indeed seems a trivial commit, but on the other hand the port has an active maintainer, from whom a quick reply could be expected.  Taken together, I would have chosen to ask the maintainer first, out of respect for the maintainer.  In a similar situation, I would imagine myself as the maintainer and how I would feel if I saw a commit happen to my port and wonder why the change was so important it couldn’t wait for me to have a look at it first.  We have this great technological platform, but in the end it’s the people that make this project.  Just because there is a rule or policy that might allow one to do something, does not mean it’s the right thing to do.

Erwin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20160401/0b0600a7/attachment.sig>