Merging pull requests before 72 hours

[Rainer Müller]

On 2018-10-16 10:06, Chris Jones wrote:
> On 16/10/18 07:37, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel wrote:
>>> On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:18 pm, Chris Jones <jonesc at
>>> hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15 Oct 2018, at 10:34 pm, Leonardo Brondani Schenkel <lbschenkel
>>>> at macports.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm a committer, and if I'm doing a trivial bump of an
>>>> openmaintainer port I'll push it directly.
>>>
>>> Depends entirely on what you consider trivial. If you consider a
>>> version update a trivial bump then I disagree. This in my opinion is
>>> something that should also be submitted as a PR so the port
>>> maintainer always gets a chance to review it. If the port is open
>>> maintainer and they do not respond within the 72 hour timeout, it can
>>> then be merged without their comment, but not before. For a committer
>>> to directly commit an update to a port that isn’t trivial and they do
>>> not maintain is in my humble opinion an abuse of the member role.
>>> Members should not bypass the PR review stage just because they can.

What you describe would be the process without openmaintainer. With
openmaintainer, "minor updates" can be pushed directly by other project
members.

I would always assume that a project member was looking for explicit
maintainer approval when submitting a change to an openmaintainer port
as a pull request. Otherwise they could just have pushed it directly.
Therefore I would recommend not to merge them unless approved by the
port's maintainer.

>> Like it or not, that's the definition of 'openmaintainer': for simple
>> version bumps, no maintainer approval is necessary.
> 
> Please point me to where this is documented ? i.e. where is it stated
> that openmaintainer allows revision changes. This appears to be one of
> the issues here since not everyone, myself included, agrees with you.
> The only statement I have found is
> 
> "If a port's maintainer contains the address
> <openmaintainer at macports.org>, this means that the author allows minor
> updates to the port without contacting him first. But permission should
> still be sought for major changes."

For the record, this is from the maintainer update policy in the guide:
https://guide.macports.org/#project.update-policies.nonmaintainer

> which does not mention this point. It leaves the interpretation of minor
> and major to the reader.

I always assumed that "minor update" means increasing version/revision
of a port. If you did not want that allowed, what else would
openmaintainer cover?

The problem has always been that the definition of what is considered a
minor or a major change largely depends on the software we are
packaging. It is hard to find a more specific rule that still applies
universally to all ports.

In general, if you as a maintainer do not want others to make updates,
you should not add the openmaintainer policy.

Rainer