From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug 11 00:43:04 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4D79D37B401; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
	[128.131.111.2])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 738D643FBF; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com)
Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60])
	by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EB26913791; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:43:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:43:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030810011011.N83831@blues.jpj.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.56.0308110932300.51329@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
References: <200308100049.h7A0nKU1069195@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20030810011011.N83831@blues.jpj.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: Absentee maintainership
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
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: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:43:04 -0000

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Trevor Johnson wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> I'd like to hear your justification of why you think this is an
>> appropriate standard of maintainership and why you think you should be
>> allowed to continue to "maintain" ports in this way.
> The situation is very similar with the qt145 port.  I'd like to see you
> tend to your own responsibilities rather than what appears to be a
> campaign against me.

This is irrelevant.  Even if there were a problem with qt145, this is
no justification for keeping a tight lock, but neglecting other ports.

That said, it would be good could you could have a look at
  http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/49056
which has been stale for five/three months and has been marked broken
on -CURRENT for three months.

http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?responsible=trevor lists
a couple of PRs with patches related to this problem alone. :-(

Gerald