Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:05:23 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Antoine Brodin <antoine@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ... Message-ID: <53341403.4000307@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/27/2014 12:16, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 10:26:22PM +0000, Antoine Brodin wrote: >> New Revision: 347539 >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/347539 >> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r347539/ >> >> Log: >> Deprecate a few unmaintained ports (leaf ports, non staged and >> unmaintained since more than 12 years) > > Antoine, > > Can you clarify a bit on what does "unmaintained" mean in this context? > Does it mean dead upstream, or MAINTAINER=ports@? > > If it's the former, I'm fine with it, but deprecating unbroken, possibly > alive ports merely based on MAINTAINER lines does not seem right to me. > > E.g. I've set a few of my ports free (that is, relinquished control over to > ports@) to let others do occasional updates or minor tweaks without having > to wait for me to approve their changes. It works well enough for simple > ports that are hard to damage by careless committing which had sadly become > quite popular recently. I am fine with this policy. If not a single committer can be bothered to adopt it in order to save it, then it's probably not worth saving. All it takes is one guy to take it over for a few months and slyly throw it back on the heap to reset the 12 year clock. Hopefully in that time he/she would actually review the port and update as necessary (in my experience these ancient ports do need a lot of TLC, they don't age all that well). Keep doing this -- it's justifiable. The person should not release ports they actually care about if the policy bothers them. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53341403.4000307>