From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 7 22:08:46 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2872D307; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 22:08:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFAC7220; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 22:08:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (159.Red-79-148-64.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [79.148.64.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F1043C0D; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:08:41 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <55245567.40702@marino.st> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:08:39 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mikhail T." , marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r383538 - head/databases/sqlitemanager References: <201504072014.t37KEtvQ028188@svn.freebsd.org> <55243D74.7060009@marino.st> <55244200.9060002@FreeBSD.org> <55244A00.6010702@marino.st> <55244DFC.4050609@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <55244DFC.4050609@aldan.algebra.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 22:08:46 -0000 On 4/7/2015 23:37, Mikhail T. wrote: > On 07.04.2015 17:20, John Marino wrote: > Yes, I do think it is better to save a port imperfectly, than to let it > expire for a silly reason. The port is now better, than it was. If it > can be improved further, you are welcome to it. It's not like anybody was complaining about it's deprecation. Honestly I'd rather see a port die before seeing it fixed in a half-assed fashion, especially if you aren't going to stand behind your work. >> (there it was said *NEVER* use CP to install files, so obviously what >> you did is not fine.) > I don't know, John, what your expectations are of the fellow > ports-maintainers, but I'm not going to review archives of mailing lists > every time I do a commit. If portlint and other automated checks I'm > aware of are happy, then so am I. Part of the discussion is that this particular error may be added to portlint, but portlint is just a tool. You are still responsible for following the PHB regardless of what portlint says or doesn't say. All the commits are peer-reviewed, so its seems that it's everyone's expectations that mistakes during the review are fixed and hopefully those are a one time thing. John