Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 07:23:03 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 260105] [NEW PORT] net/teamviewer-iot-agent The TeamViewer IoT Agent provides an out-of-the-box secure remote access and file transfer solution for your IoT environment and connected devices. Message-ID: <bug-260105-7788-dDEHpRSfrw@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-260105-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-260105-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D260105 --- Comment #4 from Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa from comment #3) > Please, provide a definition for "Valid PR". Any PR is valid unless you can show why it's not (incomplete patch, non-wor= king program, fails to fetch, upstream disappeared, etc.) and give a PR author s= ome time to reply/address those issues. If PR remains in bad shape, then you c= an close it as invalid or due to feedback timeout. I do not see anything like this in the audit trail. > where it is said we can not close "new port" PRs. Because it's rude and unfair to people who took time and effort to make a submission. Closing PRs just because they didn't catch someone's attention makes us look bad in people's eyes and deprives them from making future contributions. Closing them as FIXED when in fact nothing had been really done makes it ev= en worse. Plese don't do that. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-260105-7788-dDEHpRSfrw>