From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 3 09:14:52 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28853A65; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-x22b.google.com (mail-oa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C0D711FC; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:14:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i7so14631042oag.16 for ; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 01:14:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D5RXZnOiFBrLiKfzo7C/0zfhS+6TGoNwPopNl3gQ5gk=; b=XwuZY5g4yqL85SoyW1Aj3oak4M2s7zt043ZqtjuQbXolV3nI3wRzwqBWMjRdguAu8P qpDxuLj0/g1msDfZjVZEugS/HLDKivXqEjM3KX96TkMfKxMZR0NVxq9zWsaMARoBaReo iaXcT2WLvna5L3b0KcenF6wBnPl3R7kCMakVWO8bvBESwsycutN4kCa/rybEId7buoBD BS1qpDzd21iZZcVUm6cMQd/5/6/vIAW+vScjuSpapHrk3mLsuqfQYZ2sfoRAdrOqPKhN 8p5puqm0roRt3NS5iKzF7NUE8N0kNQjyHEJB769zYVuG1KXzDrSu8B7mESkQHz6H8k9F r5sQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.28.35 with SMTP id y3mr1154647obg.55.1386062090381; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 01:14:50 -0800 (PST) Sender: andrej.zverev@gmail.com Received: by 10.182.230.131 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:14:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131203090235.GE77731@tuxaco.net> References: <20131202131244.GC71618@tuxaco.net> <529C8C1F.7050802@marino.st> <20131202134921.GD71618@tuxaco.net> <529C91F2.6020004@marino.st> <20131202145224.GH71618@tuxaco.net> <529CA16C.2060000@marino.st> <20131202184749.GC30485@lonesome.com> <20131203015955.GA55963@apnoea.adamw.org> <20131203080830.GA77731@tuxaco.net> <529D94EE.9060609@marino.st> <20131203090235.GE77731@tuxaco.net> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:14:50 +0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tlyaus26DUjKq6oMJ_S3p85WhZ8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d From: Andrej Zverev To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philippe_Aud=E9oud?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" , "ports-committers@freebsd.org" , Adam Weinberger , Rene Ladan , John Marino X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:14:52 -0000 Please, can you add more rage and anger in your e-mails? As the conversation came to a deadlock :-) On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Philippe Aud=E9oud wr= ote: > On Tue, 03 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote: > >> On 12/3/2013 09:08, Philippe Aud=E9oud wrote: >> > >> > Adam, >> > >> > I don't care about "mine" port... I'm just saying that >> >> Philippe, >> You've denied several times that you don't care about your port, but >> your actions yesterday clearly state otherwise. It's fine because it >> serves as an example. >> >> > I'm just saying that >> > nothing is clear around maintainer and that if maintainer is set, it >> > have to be respected. >> >> THIS! >> This is exactly the point. >> You've come to understand that the listed maintainer is a complete >> monopoly and it is this concept to which we object. I would argue that >> maintainer has been respected, but you clearly feel otherwise. >> >> > I agree that we need to be more reactive to fix a mistake >> > but rules don't have to be too permissive regards to maintainer respec= t. >> >> Fixing a typo or obvious error is not a sign of disrespect. In most >> cases, the maintainer should actually be grateful that the port was >> restored quicker than he/she would have done it. >> >> > Clearly, nothing to see with "People need to un-knot their panties". >> > Serioulsy. >> >> Actually, it was quite appropriate. That's exactly how I see it too. >> > > > No comment. > >> > Now, that everybody gave his opinion about panties, playground and oth= er >> > off topic remarks, can we have a *debate* on how we can write or updat= e >> > current rules about maintainer and each committer relation, please ? >> > Obviously it's a problem encountered by many committer and it have to = be >> > fixed. Or are we only good to troll ? >> >> I'm leery about this. On another thread I've seen the first suggestion >> and I don't like where it's headed. >> >> Again, I think portmgr should be proactive about this and not wait for >> "suggestions". The problem is clear, this is not new. I consider this >> part of the responsibility of the portmgr -- to update policy as needed >> and clearly the current policy is not satisfactory. The portmgr is made >> up of smart guys, surely they can update policy without a circus of a >> debate. >> > > Do you mean that portmgr@ have to do everything alone and can't be help? > >> > I suggest to work with marino@ and rene@ to help portmgr@ and bapt@ as= k it too. >> > So, if you want to be constructive (more than talking about panties, I= mean), >> > feel free to send me an email and i will put you in the "workshop". >> >> I'm happy to "review" any proposed policy change from portmgr and >> provide feedback. I really don't want to get into a "debate" though. I >> think the issues are pretty well defined, so I trust the solution would >> be straightforward. >> > > Yeah, i noticed you don't want to debate. > > -- > Philippe Aud=E9oud