#52646 closed update (fixed)
syncthing-0.14 @0.14.8: update to 0.14.9
| Reported by: | lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel) | Owned by: | larryv (Lawrence Velázquez) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | maintainer haspatch | Cc: | mkae (Marko Käning) |
| Port: | syncthing-0.14 |
Description
Patch is attached
Attachments (1)
Change History (14)
Changed 8 years ago by lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)
| Attachment: | syncthing.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 follow-up: 2 Changed 8 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)
| Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to mk@… |
|---|---|
| Version: | 2.3.4 |
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
| Cc: | mk@… added |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from mk@… to larryv@… |
| Status: | new → assigned |
I’ll take care of it.
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
comment:4 follow-up: 5 Changed 8 years ago by lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)
I don't get it. I am the maintainer of this port. When I create a ticket, there's no "owned by" field I can fill it. What should I have done differently?
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
I think we (read: committers) sometimes forget that the Trac users see is not the same as the Trac we see. We see an additional “Owner” field on the “Create New Ticket” page.
More to the point: If you maintain a port that has a second maintainer with commit rights (as syncthing-0.14 does), it’s a good idea to Cc them on tickets you open so they get an email notification.
comment:6 follow-up: 7 Changed 8 years ago by lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)
Right. The reason I didn't add a CC is because I forgot that there is a second maintainer. When I originally submitted the port I was the only maintainer, however a co-maintainer was added to the Portfile when it was committed.
I don't object to having openmaintainer added, btw (the reason I didn't add it from the start was more of an oversight than deliberate).
I'm just a bit surprised and bit annoyed that I submitted the original port, a second maintainer was added without asking for my input, I am being scolded for updating the port I submitted myself and volunteered to maintain, and the second maintainer is saying "I should make this ..." again without asking for my input. From where I stand I feel that the maintenance of the port has been simply taken over since the initial submission, which is totally fine, but if that's the case I would prefer if that was made explicit instead of simply ignoring me for all changes. I hope I'm misunderstanding things.
comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)
Replying to leonardo.schenkel@…:
I'm just a bit surprised and bit annoyed that I submitted the original port, a second maintainer was added without asking for my input
I do not know why Marko added himself as comaintainer; that is usually not done. You might ask macports-dev for guidance on the situation, as it’s a bit unorthodox (and a bit off topic for this ticket).
comment:8 Changed 8 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)
My sole intention was to support this port because I am a committer.
I didn't mean to hijack maintainership at all, just thought the tool is worth quick updates.
Next time I have access to SVN I'll remove myself from the portfile, or any other committer feel free to do so.
I am sorry for this misunderstanding. Admittedly I should have contacted you before adding myself.
I apologize and withdraw. Won't happen again.
comment:9 Changed 8 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)
By the way, I wasn't scolding you, but instead asked you kindly using the word 'Please' to indicate CC'ing me in the future once you've filed an update on trac.
Too bad, that it's so easy to get misunderstood on trac or a ML. The written word is so often read differently than it was meant to sound.
comment:10 follow-up: 12 Changed 8 years ago by lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)
I would like to clarify a bit, because by re-reading my last comment I realize it sounded harsher than I meant.
I do not mind to have a co-maintainer at all. What annoyed me was the tone of first comment — but as you explained, I interpreted differently than you meant. I just think it was a bit against policy not to ask, but I would have said "yes" nevertheless. I commented on impulse and looking back now it sounded way harsher than I intended. Mea culpa.
It's not necessary for you to remove your name, unless you want to. I also would prefer if this port had an "openmaintainer" as well, so small changes can be done by anyone.
comment:12 Changed 8 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)
Replying to leonardo.schenkel@…:
My intention was to support this port with fast updates by making myself co-maintainer (because I know that a friend of mine also values this software). Not that I ever wanted to capture it, as I already explained. You are right, I could and should have at least asked whether it's okay to do so before committing my changes to your Portfile proposal.
But now I think that this ticket has proven that openmaintainer is more useful than simply trying to team up with a non-committing port maintainer... larryv has been acting while I hadn't a chance to do anything to fix my mistake!
Thus, I believe that I can retract my initiative and withdraw my co-maintainership as soon as I get my hands on my MacPorts port repo working copy.
comment:13 Changed 7 years ago by mkae (Marko Käning)
I've removed myself as maintainer to clarify this issue finally.
Please, set the owned-by field at ticket creation time to the port maintainer's email address.
I'll do the update within the next few days. However, any other committer is invited to commit this for me instead. (I really should make this openmaintainer...)