On 2008-Jul-05 20:02:40 +0000, Craig Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
pgpIxBALsUfs1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
