Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:53:40 +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: <565EBFA4.2010101@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <565EBB1F.20208@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> <565EB894.4090402@freebsd.org> <565EBB1F.20208@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02.12.2015 12:34, John Marino wrote: > On 12/2/2015 10:23 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> 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. > > It's a solution seeking a problem. > There's no problem. What we have now works. I congratulate you with that, but sorry, I have no willing to continue our conversation further than this message. Of course, you are not obligated to consider my personal circumstances and even other people with similar situation exists they not raising their hands. > I just objected to you thinking that a full-up upgrade of a port is an > obligation for somebody that notices a port doesn't build and marks it > broken. I already told you that there was no "obligation" word in my thinking, only wishes and suggestions, but you just ignore being occupied with your preconception. Do you think that people respond only to obligations and not wishes and suggestions? It was rhetorical question, please don't answer. >>>> 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. > > At least actions to unmaintained ports get documented. If we went with > "unmaintained", all actions would be silent. Unless, of course, you > modified the scripts to look for unmaintained, and then you would have > the *EXACT SAME* situation as we do now. Changing the value of > MAINTAINER is only cosmetic. It changes nothing except perhaps it > removes the false impression that the port is maintained (which I would > actually enjoy tbh) I don't suggest to change the word to "unmaintained", I just point that it will be more logical to indicate no contact with it, following your idea of what unmaintained is, than give false impression that somebody with free time from ports@ will deal with. >>> 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. > > what? I don't plan to eliminate unmaintained state. It is very useful. > It justifies the death blow. There's nothing inherently wrong with > "unmaintained" except when people expect any ports committer to have an > obligation to that port. That's what I object to -- like what you > implied, that role#1 was obligated to fix an unmaintained port. Sorry, no. No, I mean your words "because I would sooner deprecate an unmaintained port than fix it", assuming you decide to do that en masse. -- http://ache.vniz.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?565EBFA4.2010101>