From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Dec 2 09:23:37 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FFBA3C27C for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:23:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailing-machine@vniz.net) Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com (mail-lf0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 116D61DF2 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:23:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailing-machine@vniz.net) Received: by lfdl133 with SMTP id l133so42186258lfd.2 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 01:23:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lFidDYkuE+l7iepCfU+3KxiQmPlqmr+mv4rtc7OxVjc=; b=m0JOxwug9BZC4q18oCojA9QP88lhk3pdYD4VYWQk+eve5zAxdpYGCSsiBD09/KA9um 2mekxYAQUs2MQkQPJJnpfMCHj2jft5zbSPQrZijvVDpBNM4hsyFz7895koGoTg2cHMkA prTbEbnU8bVLn0NRK4sFSrHItzjbIAm+eVxmRI9vhpZnYNsjrzGUI3r94sdCneUP7GT3 +lNSjfZ8kGX1ERtrHhfp63G1mS4zF+NNCoFgdUHsclHzRv3RKPs2xbcTd4RMPSeq7cWH Rz8Y5UFhqk3gy2FMRox/+0BVVRz6s464HJZX/vTjpTxa70cPrP3oPiLW7BUuZZDJTYQE UGYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmD15CDEALYqXycq/7qlZD+VC3fCAN+8P0YXbrtUcF4HRjWqOm9IN4JQ4MgKxywy9U+tJQ2 X-Received: by 10.112.99.4 with SMTP id em4mr1290977lbb.87.1449048215021; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 01:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([89.169.173.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l128sm320930lfe.27.2015.12.02.01.23.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Dec 2015 01:23:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r402813 - head/misc/astrolog To: marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org References: <201512020629.tB26TbDb060296@repo.freebsd.org> <565E9DFA.6050502@marino.st> <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org> <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> <565EB1AC.4000508@freebsd.org> <565EB3B7.8030208@marino.st> From: Andrey Chernov X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <565EB894.4090402@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:23:32 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <565EB3B7.8030208@marino.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 09:23:37 -0000 On 02.12.2015 12:02, John Marino wrote: > On 12/2/2015 9:54 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> >> 3) Contact the person who does most commits to this port. > > I think this is a dream. I don't expect people to sort through the > history and try to figure out a commit pattern, plus the presence of a > prior commit doesn't imply a willingness for a future commit. In that case we need some UNLOCKED_FOR_COMMITS = Yes (or some other name) field. F.e. due to my personal circumstances I can't take full responsibility to reply to change requests (even for several months sometimes) and so to be maintainer for some ports, and I don't want to prevent any people to modify it quickly too. >> IMHO ports@freebsd.org means "collectively maintained" (without any >> obligation, but with good intentions). There is no reason to put e-mail >> address in this field otherwise, just the word "unmaintained" which >> clearly indicates no contacts. > > This is incorrect. It's ports@FreeBSD.org because it needs a valid > email address, in this case a mail list. It is not an argument. "Valid email address" is just technical current scripts requirement which can be easily fixed to count "unmaintained" word too. > This philosophical disagreement is a problem, because I would sooner > deprecate an unmaintained port than fix it. If you care about this port > so much, then adopt it. See the very first paragraph. In the early FreeBSD days there was no enough bureaucracy to enforce such restrictions. >> BTW, maintained ports for me is worse thing. I can quickly fix any >> unmaintained port, but for maintained one I need to wait 2 weeks timeout >> and by my personal stats only ~20% maintainers reply. Either their >> emails are dead or they just ignore requests. We even don't have any >> automation to collect and remove dead maintainer addresses in regular basis. > > The good news is that after 3 timeouts (or less depending on > circumstances) you can reset the maintainer. If it's a one time > timeout, that's life. If it's a theme, then we have options. Reset it to unmaintained which you plan to eliminate? Very funny. -- http://ache.vniz.net/