[Maintainer Update] devel/py-robotframework-selenium2library 1.6.0 -> 1.7.4

[Vladimir.Chukharev_gmail.com]

Summary

Update devel/py-robotframework-selenium2library from 1.6.0 to 1.7.4
Add LICENSE_FILE
Add NO_ARCH=yes

Test Plan

Passed all my QA tests. Logs will be included to Bugzilla.

[Vladimir.Chukharev_gmail.com]

See bug 205126 in Bugzilla for QA tests output.

[mat]

Looks good, please file A PR.

[Vladimir.Chukharev_gmail.com]

Thanks, mat. A PR 205126 is filed as mentioned in my previous comment. Was it wrong to submit a PR before receiving a positive review?

[koobs]

There's no strict rules, and there can be benefits both ways:

• Person with large/complex changeset(s) on bugzilla, needs lots of review in one place
• Person who wants to check things are good before creating issues

[koobs]

My guess is, since @mat accepted the revision, it was 'time' to create an issue :)

[mat]

In D4437#93469, @Vladimir.Chukharev_gmail.com wrote:

Thanks, mat. A PR 205126 is filed as mentioned in my previous comment. Was it wrong to submit a PR before receiving a positive review?

Not at all, I did not see the comment ?, I'm in the Ports Committers group so I get notifications for code reviews that end up there, so I reviewed.

My point, which was lost by fault of the fact that I had just woken up and forgot to make it, was that this, here, is a code review tool, it is not designed for tracking bug reports, so, any update must be submitted through our bug tracking system.

I'm not certain opening a code review for patches as simple as this one is worth it.

[Vladimir.Chukharev_gmail.com]

My reasoning to create a PR immediately after a review was to put the QA logs to the PR and make cross-references in both of them. I have a feeling, probably false, that QA logs suit better a PR than a review.

Would be nice to add best practices at least to wiki.FreeBSD.org/CodeReview , even better a chapter about Phabricator to Porter's Handbook.

[Vladimir.Chukharev_gmail.com]

mat, I agree, the change is very simple, and that's why I added ports commiters group (otherwise I'd use only Python group).
On the other hand, Julio Merino has a good point in his opinion that everything is to be reviewed.

[mat]

In D4437#93489, @Vladimir.Chukharev_gmail.com wrote:

mat, I agree, the change is very simple, and that's why I added ports commiters group (otherwise I'd use only Python group).
On the other hand, Julio Merino has a good point in his opinion that everything is to be reviewed.

Well, I agree that everything should be reviewed, but as you are not a committer, so you can't commit this directly, so there will be at least another pair of eyes that will look at the patch, the committer committing the patch, will review it. For patches as simple as this, I don't feel opening a code review here is needed.