Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:21:42 +0200 From: Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Frederic Culot <culot@FreeBSD.org>, bapt@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/8kingdoms Makefile ports/misc/airoflash Makefile ports/graphics/autopano-sift Makefile ports/x11/avant-window-navigator-xfce4 Makefile ports/lang/boo Makefile ports/x11/cl-clx-sbcl Makefile ports/palm/coldsync ... Message-ID: <20120410122141.GA73185@gahrfit.gahr.ch> In-Reply-To: <20120410115630.GB2456@lonesome.com> References: <201204092351.q39Npi6F025202@repoman.freebsd.org> <20120410091537.GK98668@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <20120410114537.GL17460@culot.org> <20120410115630.GB2456@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-Apr-10, 06:56, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:45:38PM +0200, Frederic Culot wrote: > > To conciliate such a necessary action without hurting the feelings of t= hose > > maintainers who despite their work could not update the state of their = port in a > > timely manner, maybe it would be good to be more verbose in the log of = such > > commits. Inspired by linimon's emails, something like the following cou= ld be > > added: >=20 > I do get some responses from maintainers to those emails, and (except > in the cases where the email gets stuck in my mbox) I honor their requests > for an extension. OTOH in general I get personal replies and not replies > to the list, so people aren't seeing that interaction in public. >=20 > From my standpoint, by the time something has been broken for 6 months, > the maintainer will have already gotten multiple emails from portsmon. > So, I'm going to have to say I'm a little frustrated if I need to send > another round of mail even on top of that. That's exactly my point: maintainers are very likely to know the situation by the time these deprecation campaigns set off, and committing to their ports without prior approval is in contrast with our policy. I still do not see the necessity to deprecate maintained ports, even though a port might be maintained as broken for a long period of time. The maintainer might be waiting for something to happen either upstream or in our infrastructure, which could release the port from brokenness. --=20 Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project gahr@FreeBSD.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk+EJdUACgkQwMJqmJVx945iawCeKwOswiUrwD9T1W68V/8yXPpZ NuEAn22EjoshP779m2cjxcKX0VkHmvVA =KRWJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120410122141.GA73185>