Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:54:04 +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: <565EB1AC.4000508@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> References: <201512020629.tB26TbDb060296@repo.freebsd.org> <565E9DFA.6050502@marino.st> <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org> <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02.12.2015 11:34, John Marino wrote: > On 12/2/2015 9:26 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> On 02.12.2015 10:30, John Marino wrote: >>> On 12/2/2015 7:29 AM, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: >>>> Author: ache >>>> Date: Wed Dec 2 06:29:36 2015 >>>> New Revision: 402813 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/402813 >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> Unbreak port, update to the latest version of Swiss Ephemeris >>>> (It does not require any patching, who mark the port BROKEN >>>> can easily do it by yourself) >>> >>> This is an unfair comment. >>> The *distfile* changed. That implies a poudriere run. >>> THe person marking BROKEN often does it in a batch of a several ports >>> that have starting failing in a bulk run. They aren't looking at *any* >>> of them and rely on the maintainer or a user that cares to figure out >>> what happened. >>> >>> In this case, it's as much work as you can ask without having to >>> generate patches, so I don't agree with the second half of the comment >>> AT ALL. >>> >> >> Well, this procedure makes unmaintained ports (like this one) doomed to >> die even on slightest change (distfile moving to other site etc). >> According to commit log I am a user that cares to figure out (and I >> don't want to be maintainer), but the person who marks is BROKEN is not >> bothered to investigate. > > And? > There are two roles here: > 1) Marking the port broken > 2) Unbreaking the port. > > You are implying the person that does role #1 is obligated to do role > #2, even if he/she is in the process of marking 40 ports broken. > > In the best case, even if role #1 is only breaking 1 port, why do you > think they are obligated to anything other than the trivial fix. > IMO ports@freeBSD.org means "unmaintained", not "collectively maintained > though obligation". I know others believe in the latter, but I have > plently of agreement with the former. > > The two roles are not connected and role #1 has no obligation to role #2. > > John > 3) Contact the person who does most commits to this port. I don't say anything about obligation, only about possibility based on good intention. Nobody _must_ do it but can. 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. 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. -- http://ache.vniz.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?565EB1AC.4000508>