From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Apr  3 20:39:13 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF9C106566B;
	Sun,  3 Apr 2011 20:39:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA1414E43F;
	Sun,  3 Apr 2011 20:39:13 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4D98DAF1.5080802@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:39:13 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201104021205.p32C5Y8g082718@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20110402155230.GA80090@magic.hamla.org> <4D978D14.406@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110403055703.GA81066@magic.hamla.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110403055703.GA81066@magic.hamla.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dirk Meyer <dinoex@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 20:39:13 -0000

On 4/2/2011 10:57 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> I share your rationale for the most part, but I am still unclear about
> what some might call an 'edge' case.

It sounds to me like what you want are clear, bright lines that we can 
form policy around. I wish you luck with that. :)

Meanwhile, given the way that our ports and packages work bumping 
PORTREVISION is a blunt tool, and has tradeoffs. IMO ports committers 
need to have some firm guidelines for the common cases, but also to use 
their discretion on the edges.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/