Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>