On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 09:12:46AM +0100, Kevin Golding wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:21:31 +0100, Cy Schubert <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > In message <[email protected]>, Michelle Sullivan writes: > > > > Don't forget that many people see their name/email in the maintainer > > > line as being responsible for the port.. so someone goes makes blanket > > > changes which actually breaks stuff.. that reflects on the person in the > > > Maintainer line - whether you want it to do so or not, whether you > > > believe it or not.. > > > > I think it's more than the maintainer perceives that they're responsible. > > Getting that email from freebsd-pkg-fallout I think there was and maybe > > still is a general impression that is had. I for one take the attitude, > > you > > break it, you fix it and I don't hesitate to email any committer who > > made a > > blanket change that broke something. It's only fair because fixing > > breakage > > caused by others also takes away from other productive work and projects, > > as some of us do have time constraints and time pressure due to other > > commitments. > > I think it goes beyond just breakages though. Recently I had a couple of > ports to update so I made sure my tree was current first thing in the > morning, I went through and updated. Then I ran all the build logs etc. > submitted my patches to bugzilla - and about the same time someone did a > blanket update of RUN_DEPENDS in my ports. Including a PORTREVISION bump. > It's easy to argue that's a very trivial change that doesn't needs > maintainer involvement, but it also impacted my day. > > So I updated my tree again and did the whole process again which was > inconvenient, but I also found myself cringing at any users of the port > perhaps updating on the PORTREVISION and then a couple of days later when my > more complete update was committed having to do it again. I thought it > looked bad as I was obsoleting the patches and build logs I submitted a > couple of hours earlier too. > > Had I known about the blanket update I could've rolled that into my updates > or something, but it was just suddenly there. There was no public warning of > that change coming (and I did search the relevant lists just to make sure I > hadn't missed something). Luckily my ports are mostly trivial so the actual > impact was fairly low, but it still annoyed me and made me feel that it made > me look bad. It still took extra time to do these simple updates, especially > once I started wondering what I'd missed to not catch this beforehand. I > felt rather lucky that I'm quite a low volume maintainer in that regard > because it could've easily sucked up a lot more of my time. > > On the flipside blanket updates will logically come from people who give far > more time to this stuff than me. Will they be happy with having to jump > through hoops for the likes of me? If I'm unhappy about the extra time this > caused me maybe I'm being unfair in asking them to spend time checking for > pending updates before doing something. Maybe I just need to suck it up and > let the big players do their thing. >
What you are asking is part of the blanket in particular when changing things in individual ports, we expect committers to have a look at pending PR (yes I know I have been guilty of individual port change without sometime checking about pending PR which was wrong from my side) For sweeping changes this is a bit different as when a change touches a large portion of the tree we can not expect the committer to have a look at each individual ports. Best regards, Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
