From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 2 13:58:35 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B55AAC4B; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:58:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8835215A1; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:58:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.31.10.22] (unknown [213.225.137.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6AD438BD; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:58:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <529C91F2.6020004@marino.st> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:58:10 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philippe_Aud=E9oud?= Subject: Re: svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d References: <201311301102.rAUB2I21004889@svn.freebsd.org> <20131202093409.GA71618@tuxaco.net> <529C5F05.6020706@marino.st> <20131202104324.GB71618@tuxaco.net> <529C689B.9050902@marino.st> <20131202131244.GC71618@tuxaco.net> <529C8C1F.7050802@marino.st> <20131202134921.GD71618@tuxaco.net> In-Reply-To: <20131202134921.GD71618@tuxaco.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:58:35 -0000 On 12/2/2013 14:49, Philippe Audéoud wrote: > > Ok, just calm down, every thing gonne be all right... I didn't challenge > him, but I won't debate anymore, you don't look to be opened to a > debate. > > My personal think is : I was on week-end and i don't use computer on > week-end. I guess this delete commit could wait 2 days. Why should it? It was the date you defined. Rene is right to assume that the port maintainer isn't intending to delete the port in a timely fashion because it almost never happens. Your desire to delete the port yourself on the expiration date is exceptional. >> >> This is the situation today. My position is that this is a bad policy. >> I say we should not have to wait 2 weeks to unbreak a port and your >> response is "wait up to 2 weeks to unbreak a port". Perhaps I >> misunderstood you, but that's what I understood. >> > > And, if rules are not good, i break them? I disagree with highway code, > and i should break it only because i'm not aware? You are misrepresenting me. I follow the rules, but they are crappy rules so I'm complaining about them. Rene did not break any rules that I am aware of. (You conveniently did not show me where this "rule" is documented, nor why you think port maintenance privilege extends past the expire deadline). > I'm not protective with my ports, I'm just applying rules. You can be > disagree with rules but before breaking them and do what you want, you > should talk to portmgr@ to change that. > > And as you seem to have free time to mail on a wrong place debate, you > should: > 1- mail portmgr@ with your opinion and ask them to change current rules. > 2- give a hand on closing PR for freebsd-port-bugs To iterate: Nobody has broken any rules. What "rule" did Rene or I break? To whom are you referring? what does #2 have to do with anything? That is total random. I assume any active portmgr@ will see this thread. I don't need to rehash it, not do I need to start simultaneous issues with them (I have one pending already). Hint: If you don't respond, I'll stop responding too. :)