From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 4 09:16:50 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@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 0A586F89 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:16:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (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 CB32C1A5D for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s849Gng3041045 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:16:49 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193185] [stage] net/ipsorc MASTER_SITES LICENSE WWW take maintainership Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:16:49 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: portmaster@bsdforge.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Needs Triage X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:16:50 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193185 --- Comment #15 from C Hutchinson --- (In reply to John Marino from comment #13) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #11) > > Well that would explain it. > > I always use 4. But NP, I can live with it. Thanks for pointing it out. > > /me bands head against wall. > > If the issue was just affecting you, I wouldn't care. But we've seen that > it affects your submissions, which means it affects everyone that deals with > the PR it's submitted on. > > So I said, "Use tab=8 always, and you say you'll stick with 4 and deal". > That tells me more mis-tabs are coming. And once you have a reputation for > being sloppy, people are going to pass your PRs for those contributors that > pay attention to detail. e.g. there are 10 PRs and you have time to pick up > one. Are you going to pick up the PR from the guy with the great > reputation, or the guy whose PRs always have issues? Even if they are only > cosmetic issues? Think about it. Not true. Well, OK, true too. But. I can see the pattern(s) here. Especially now _knowing_ that most of the ports files are in an 8-space tab format. I can easily count, and you have also noted their [preferred] numbers. So long as I use the correct count, everyone will be happy. No? I have no intention, nor desire to be "sloppy". But I think everyone can win, in this particular case. No? Thanks, John. Points well taken. :) --Chris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.