From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan 26 00:05:12 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3C6135D
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 00:05:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from shell0.rawbw.com (shell0.rawbw.com [198.144.192.45])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694B41454
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 00:05:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from eagle.yuri.org (stunnel@localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (authenticated bits=0)
 by shell0.rawbw.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0Q05BiM083431;
 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:05:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com)
Message-ID: <52E45137.5070703@rawbw.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:05:11 -0800
From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?
References: <CAHcXP+f6e-t--XbQPTH1goJp_CL7P=zTj5trZVWd4YZ_EsO9gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGBxaX=t3e5SXoBDHnzAbx=SWbEFMJHNPQL13FnwNgKWM3gCiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHcXP+ew5qt5hc9Y+R_njPkfhUMsDDAqNk9aYSacV4PwBmqjfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGBxaXnXwo4JxnRdffZfdvfETfhgJNkFM-N23H1SOT0G3-oMwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE-m3X2dQTTsbrTJg2iPT3qkfq7h9U8oGbRZXGAXH+J2T4MFNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHcXP+dtHPHT+FD8RdcqhGANBPf1Gk4N4coEpZY-eAuQE3iZtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE-m3X2rWk-0k_yH1PK0iN_5YhvSh1UsV0VCrroJq==687X1ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com>
 <CAGBxaXnfb2yPZZCaf6mYzASzT13b68A8iPT6eUwUdU9W1ya_Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com>
 <CAGBxaXkCWAAfA+7x9-icTwO4Vd78EGOeh5-4eG3DUJ_gGVHT1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGBxaXkCWAAfA+7x9-icTwO4Vd78EGOeh5-4eG3DUJ_gGVHT1g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bernhard_Fr=F6hlich?= <decke@bluelife.at>,
 Big Lebowski <spankthespam@gmail.com>, ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 00:05:12 -0000

On 01/25/2014 15:48, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> Git hup (or*ANY*  remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO

But both Debian and Fedora do this with automated remote testing, and 
they don't seem to complain.
How is our ports different in this respect?

Yuri