From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D621381F3 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:55:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FE5221C06F; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:54:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5E2621C052 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:54:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.132] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.242.65.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C26333DA84 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50C0BFB1.6050407@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:54:25 -0500 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121203 Thunderbird/10.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Proxy maintainers in metadata.xml (was Re: [gentoo-dev] introduce a soft-limit policy for changing other developers ebuilds) References: <50BB71DD.4080308@gentoo.org> <50BDAFE2.6000702@gentoo.org> <50BE1E3E.9070406@gentoo.org> <50BE2D95.1000201@flameeyes.eu> <50BE32B9.6010205@gentoo.org> <20121206152724.19286.qmail@stuge.se> In-Reply-To: <20121206152724.19286.qmail@stuge.se> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2407a02a-8bfd-4e6a-85b7-4c1bc71ef5a9 X-Archives-Hash: 5f11f610dbe6484c81e418004c11dbae -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 06/12/12 10:27 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > [ Snip! ] In the last 15 hours I've dealt with several trivial bugs > that I've found fixes for in bugzilla but which were not committed > anywhere. > > I've committed them to my overlay and that's fine for me, but if I > were a developer I would find it super lame to have to stop there > and wait for $otherguy to take time to look at "his" bugs. [ Snip! > ] > > I would expect to fix the bugs, and then email patches to whoever > is the maintainer. It would be worthwhile to have automatic > extraction of who needs to get that email based on what files were > touched. No bug needed, if maintainers get perfect patches in email > they can review them quickly and simply push them into the tree. There's a bit of an issue with this, though -- for many projects, and many bugs, patches are not committed to the tree until that bug and patch has been submitted upstream (job of the maintainer) and upstream has approved or accepted that patch. I think quite often this is why patches sit in bugs instead of getting to the tree. Essentially, if the problem is with the ebuild or the way the package is integrated into gentoo, then fixing it immediately is fine. If the problem is with the software itself, then usually upstream needs to be involved before the fix will occur in gentoo. Also, Emailing patches to the maintainer is much less acceptable/desirable than filing them through bugzilla. As a developer, I find it much easier to grab patches from this nice centralized bug-tracking filing system than to have to organize them in email, and git integration is not something I see changing this. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlDAv7EACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCQ/QEAmYjna1exh9qxqptbdB08Hvoo TzJi72ux2nf9edZsR3IA+wXENBA1EDuc/8JDN74aJ0/iFdhL1yG2CxJ515tNDxxX =4d2v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----