What "openmaintainer" means

[Joshua Root]

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 <jmr at macports.org>
>> 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