On 2018-4-26 01:10 , Joshua Root wrote: > On 2018-4-26 00:25 , Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 04:43:12 +1000 Joshua Root <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 2018-4-25 03:56 , Ken Cunningham wrote: >>>> Waiting for the maintainer to review the ticket submission >>>> someday often resulted in months of nothing happening, or years. >>> >>> The maintainer timeout was 72 hours all along, so that's not really >>> relevant to a discussion about the limits of openmaintainer. >> >> I think if you don't feel a clean version update falls in the limits >> of openmaintainer (that is, just bumping the version and the >> checksums), then I'm not sure what does fall under "openmaintainer" >> for you. > > Minor, uncontroversial changes. Something is broken or suboptimal and > the fix is obvious. Specific examples: > > * Typos > * Using eval when {*} could be used > * Rev bump needed when a dependency's ABI changed > * Add --disable-werror when the build starts failing when a new version > of clang adds a new warning > * Fix bundled libtool that thinks 10.10 is 10.1 > * Build fails on a new OS version because of something like a missing > #include > * Build is missing the correct -arch flags and adding them in the right > place is simple > > Some version bumps may be minor, others are definitely not. I would > suggest considering the size of upstream changes in addition to those > made to the port.
Another thing I should probably point out is that the openmaintainer policy was developed before pull requests were a thing. The idea was that the committers collectively could help maintain ports. The internet at large being able to create commits just wasn't a consideration. - Josh
