Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:23:32 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> To: marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r402813 - head/misc/astrolog Message-ID: <565EB894.4090402@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <565EB3B7.8030208@marino.st> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?565EB894.4090402>