new ports and maintainer

Daniel J. Luke dluke at
Thu Jul 24 14:49:48 PDT 2014

On Jul 24, 2014, at 4:55 PM, Sean Farley <sean at> 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.

they do?

I've found that it's very rare that someone touches my non-openmaintainer port(s)

> 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?

it's worth nothing that the complexity of an individual portfile is generally pretty low (as it should be).

> I would instead like to encourage better practices rather than "don't
> touch my port" which, I believe, leads to bottlenecks for fixing
> tickets. 

this isn't something we have to rely on 'belief' for - we could actually measure response time on tickets. I would suspect that there are easier ways to fix the problem you're outlining (maintainer timeout) without having to go so far as to say "no more exclusive maintainer"

>> Ultimately, I'm not willing to provide active support for something that lots of other people are going to (potentially) be updating (and, in general, I prefer to get prior notice of a possible change before it hits the repo).
> Ideally, we'd have a pull request or code review model where you (and
> whomever else is listed in the portfile) would be notify to review.

um, that's how non-openmaintainer ports work.

You open a ticket (with a patch) assigned to the maintainer who then reviews it before it's committed.

> This
> is kind of what Ryan and other core devs try to do by reviewing the
> mailing list of changes but would now allow them (and other reviewers)
> to stop before a change is integrated.

which is the opposite of just letting anyone with commit access commit changes (which is what openmaintainer says).

> Honestly, I think you'd be better served by having a comment say "please
> run changes past <email address / macports-dev> before committing."

and again, that's how non-openmaintainer ports work (ie, if you email me a diff/patch/change for subversion - I'll review it and either apply it, modify it and apply it, tell you to apply it, or discuss why we may not want to apply it as-is ... I follow the same process if you open a ticket and assign it to me, which is better since it's stored where others can see it).

Daniel J. Luke                                                                   
| *---------------- dluke at ----------------* |                          
| *-------------- -------------* |                          
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |                          
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |                          

More information about the macports-dev mailing list