Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:31:28 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422114 - head/misc/fortune_strfile Message-ID: <20160914123128.GA32707@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <40537f68-1d2b-194c-55d5-b133d743ed3e@marino.st> References: <201609140545.u8E5jeBH058686@repo.freebsd.org> <eb09770a-b234-f889-2f2c-d6127ab76cc7@FreeBSD.org> <40537f68-1d2b-194c-55d5-b133d743ed3e@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:21:08AM -0500, John Marino wrote: > I met the requirements of the policy. IMHO, yes, you have. But I remember when we discussed the policy, the idea was to prevent this number from growing: Number of ports with no maintainer: 4814 (18.4%) Note that that number does not include group-maintained ports (e.g. gnome@, perl@). That's just ports@ per se. My own opinion is that 4814 is way too many. And, I don't buy the argument that some have made that "unmaintained ports are better maintained than some maintained ports". My own personal belief, stated at the time when I was on portmgr, was that unmaintained ports contributed to bitrot. Obligatory disclaimer: I am no longer on portmgr. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160914123128.GA32707>