Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 03:12:50 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> Cc: 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: <20151203031250.GA25120@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <565EB1AC.4000508@freebsd.org> References: <201512020629.tB26TbDb060296@repo.freebsd.org> <565E9DFA.6050502@marino.st> <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org> <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> <565EB1AC.4000508@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:54:04AM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On 02.12.2015 11:34, John Marino wrote: > > [...] > > There are two roles here: > > 1) Marking the port broken > > 2) Unbreaking the port. > > > > You are implying the person that does role #1 is obligated to do role > > #2, even if he/she is in the process of marking 40 ports broken. > > > > In the best case, even if role #1 is only breaking 1 port, why do you > > think they are obligated to anything other than the trivial fix. They're not obliged, it's just a nice thing to do so. Honestly I don't understand why people are marking ports as broken so eagerly, much rarer attempting to fix them. Do they actually use FreeBSD, or just hacking on it on their macbookpros? > > IMO ports@freeBSD.org means "unmaintained", not "collectively maintained > > though obligation". I know others believe in the latter, but I have > > plently of agreement with the former. This is one of our problems (that people treat ports@ as "unmaintained" and doomed to die). > IMHO ports@freebsd.org means "collectively maintained" (without any > obligation, but with good intentions). +1. This reading of "ports@" is a lot nicer to ports itself, their authors, prior contributors, and ultimately our users. IMHO we should try harder to make it this way. > BTW, maintained ports for me is worse thing. I can quickly fix any > unmaintained port, but for maintained one I need to wait 2 weeks timeout > and by my personal stats only ~20% maintainers reply. +1. I also like unmaintained ports; they're easy to work with and often work better than maintained ones. If unmaintained ports coredumps for me I'll try to fix it, if maintained port does the same I'd probably go away (unless maintainer is known to have good prior record) -- the fact that *maintained* ports coredumps means that maintainer has not clue or does not care, and I often CBA to wait a fortnight for their reply. > Either their emails are dead or they just ignore requests. We even don't > have any automation to collect and remove dead maintainer addresses in > regular basis. AFAICT we do have some kind of maintainer emails verification; you might have seen "maintainer reset" commits in the past. I think it's done in a (semi-)automatic fashion. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151203031250.GA25120>