Hi,
1. if the person doing the update is skilled (and at this point I generally know the difference), 2. if they indicate that they've tested the result, 3. if it seems based on history that the listed maintainer is unlikely to comment then or ever (and I usually guess right), 4. and that if what's being done seems to be a simple version bump
One of the issues is that last point. In general its not possible to be 100% sure whether or not a 'simple' version bump is a trivial change or not, and what the impact of that would be. So either we accept that the determination of what is or is not trivial is left to the member that is reviewing the PR, at which point we have to accept that not everyone will have the same opinion all the time, so sometimes there will be disagreements (like the PR that started this), or we have some 'very' clear guidelines to follow, which is what I brought up in my last mail.
that it is okay to merge a request against an openmaintainer port. I think I've guessed wrong only a few times in many hundreds of pull requests.
Just for the record I have absolutely no problems with the way you have been handling things, and am very appreciative of the fact you are making the effort to review and merge PRs. More members should really help out with this (myself included). So please do not take the above as a complaint against what you have been doing. Just a comment that I think the guidelines we are working under need clarification.
If these sorts of things aren't okay to merge pretty quickly, then why do we have an openmaintainer designation at all? I mean, if there's really no distinction in how you treat an openmaintainer and a non-openmaintainer port, why have openmaintainer? Why not just have everything closed maintainer?
The way I view openmaintainer is ports that are labeled as such can have (non trivial) PRs applied to them, *once the 72 hour timeout has expired*, without the explicit consent of the maintainer, as long as some sort of agreement of other members that the update is reasonable is reached. But the 72 hour timeout should always be adhered to for anything that does not classify as 'trivial' (whatever the rules are for this).
I do agree though, as Mojca has already brought up, that perhaps we should consider getting rid of the 'openmaintainer' tag and instead consider everything open by default, unless explicitly flagged as 'closedmaintainer'. This could also be used as an opportunity to review which ports really need to be closed...
Chris
Perry
