Daniel J. Luke writes:
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>
>>> In fact I've proposed combining openmaintainer and nomaintainer before. But
>>> would this actually get us anything useful?
>>
>> For one, it would save the manual work of reminding devs that forget.
>> For another
On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> In fact I've proposed combining openmaintainer and nomaintainer before. But
>> would this actually get us anything useful?
>
> For one, it would save the manual work of reminding devs that forget.
> For another, it would be consolidate some of
Ryan Schmidt writes:
> On Aug 8, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> Ryan Schmidt writes:
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
How would you produce that list if "nomaintainer" and "openmaintainer"
>>
On Aug 8, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt writes:
>
>> On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
>>>
>>> How would you produce that list if "nomaintainer" and "openmaintainer" were
>>> combined into a single va
Ryan Schmidt writes:
> On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
>>
>> How would you produce that list if "nomaintainer" and "openmaintainer" were
>> combined into a single value?
>
> Thinking about it a bit more, I guess the answer is
On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> port echo name:^p5- and maintainer:nomaintainer
>
> How would you produce that list if "nomaintainer" and "openmaintainer" were
> combined into a single value?
Thinking about it a bit more, I guess the answer is that it is a regular
expressio
On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Sean Farley wrote:
> One of my points is that there is no
> real difference between 'openmaintainer' and 'nomaintainer'. One has
> other devs listed, the other does not, so why not combine the names?
> It's easy enough to see that if 'openmaintainer' is listed and no o
Daniel J. Luke writes:
> On Jul 25, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>> The maintainer is supposed to hold the consolidated knowledge of that
>> software as relates to building it within MacPorts, and may have very good
>> reasons for
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Frank Schima wrote:
>
> We definitely need a better process for determining which maintainers are
> inactive. That was the basis of my idea of a short and simple mass email. I
> suspect we have lots of dead email addresses which will be easy to remove.
> Even if t
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
>
>> I agree we have a problem with maintainers disappearing and it taking some
>> time for us to notice and react. But we do have a port abandonment
>> procedure, and I would instead focus on improvements to that procedure, and
>> better maint
* On 25.07.2014 04:55 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
>> It is busywork. However, I find it very unlikely that a port doesn't get
>> changed at least once every 6 months. Maybe not for updates, but because
>> dependencies require a revision bump, a
On Jul 25, 2014, at 5:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
>
>> However, non-openmaintainer ports are required to insert a comment in the
>> Portfile, reading something along those lines:
>>
>> # TIMESTAMP: openmaintainer prohibited.
>>
>> TIMESTAMP
On Jul 25, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
>
> * On 25.07.2014 03:50 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> +1 for this too. I have at least one non-openmaintainer port that went ~9
>> years between upstream releases - I'm not going to remember to check in a
>> mostly meaningless timestamp updat
* On 25.07.2014 01:21 pm, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> # TIMESTAMP: openmaintainer prohibited.
>>
>> [...]
>
> I do not want to have to update a timestamp in every portfile periodically.
> That's just busywork. We have other ways to see if
On Jul 25, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> The maintainer is supposed to hold the consolidated knowledge of that
> software as relates to building it within MacPorts, and may have very good
> reasons for why a port does or does not do
On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> Yes, so why have the exclusivity?
The maintainer is supposed to hold the consolidated knowledge of that software
as relates to building it within MacPorts, and may have very good reasons for
why a port does or does not do something and doesn't w
Mihai Moldovan writes:
> * On 24.07.2014 11:49 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>> Unless you've
>>> left comments in your portfiles, then there's no auditable way to
>>> maintain your ports if, say, you stop being a maintainer.
>> I can't parse this sentence. "no auditable way" what are you auditing?
Daniel J. Luke writes:
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>
>>> I, for one, appreciate the ability to specify which ports I don't care if
>>> people apply patches to vs. ports where I'm very careful about
>>> updating/keeping things from breaking.
>>
>> Well, the problem is p
* On 24.07.2014 11:49 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> Unless you've
>> left comments in your portfiles, then there's no auditable way to
>> maintain your ports if, say, you stop being a maintainer.
> I can't parse this sentence. "no auditable way" what are you auditing?
Don't nitpick. :)
He means th
On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> I, for one, appreciate the ability to specify which ports I don't care if
>> people apply patches to vs. ports where I'm very careful about
>> updating/keeping things from breaking.
>
> Well, the problem is people still commit on your ports.
Daniel J. Luke writes:
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>
>> Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have
>> every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could
>> set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a port wit
A compromise here could be, instead of getting rid of openmaintainer
entirely, or keeping it opt-in like it currently is, we could make it
opt-out instead. There are two ways we could do this:
1. When committing new ports submitted by users without commit access, make
it a policy to automatically
On Jul 24, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
> Why not drop 'openmaintainer' and amend the community policy to have
> every port be what we now call 'openmaintainer'? Furthermore, we could
> set up a way for the listed port authors to be emailed when a port with
> their name on it has change
David Evans writes:
> On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship
>> for new ports.
>>
>> I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when
>> contributing a new port and that nomantainer
On 7/24/14 4:25 AM, p...@macports.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship
> for new ports.
>
> I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when
> contributing a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned
Hi all,
I am wondering if there is a well defined policy regarding maintainer ship for
new ports.
I understand that it is quite usual to assume maintainer ship when contributing
a new port and that nomantainer is more usual for abandoned ports. But is it
usual to commit new ports as with `nom
26 matches
Mail list logo
