From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 7 07:51:54 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id F201AADC; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:51:54 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r383472 - head/audio/muse Message-ID: <20150407075154.GA58322@FreeBSD.org> References: <201504061859.t36IxK0v000969@svn.freebsd.org> <20150407012902.GA22994@FreeBSD.org> <91AB85D3-A8DE-491C-A2D7-4E8D7E1CDC12@adamw.org> <20150407023204.GA44784@FreeBSD.org> <552376AD.7010903@marino.st> <20150407070711.GA90710@FreeBSD.org> <552386FA.7030007@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <552386FA.7030007@marino.st> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh , svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:51:55 -0000 On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:27:54AM +0200, John Marino wrote: > [...] > You've already gotten feedback from 3 people that they prefer the new > version, so that's hardly gratuitous. Well, Don had really said that he is "not particularly fond of either the original or the update", but let's stop it here; arguing about this whole thing further is getting ridiculous. Getting back on a larger, general scale: > There's only 3 cases: > 1) the maintainer is doing it himself (not your business) I beg to disagree. Being a maintainer does not mean one can do anything about the port; there are certain rules, bylaws, and guidelines on how to maintain a port properly and not make work of others harder. Also, mind the fact that maintainers (in a long run) come and go, so it might not be mine (or yours) today, but not necessarily tomorrow. > ports@FreeBSD.org ports are one step above deprecation. Just let > drive-by fixers do their job on unwanted ports without giving them too > much grief. That's my opinion. I generally disagree with this concept of unmaintained => one step above deprecation and unwanted. I've given away quite a bunch of my ports, which are certainly not unwanted and are up-to-date and in good working condition, just because I do not want to pose a hard lock on them, and they are hard to mess up with. That said, what's wrong with having them "maintained by the community" (by ports@)? I like this reading of what does "maintained by ports@" really mean better. :-) MAINTAINER=ports@ should not be a scarlet letter. ./danfe