Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:57:01 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Rusmir Dusko <nemysis@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Antoine Brodin <antoine@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: <5334201D.8060704@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20140327125136.GC93483@FreeBSD.org> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <20140327125909.6b102c8d@nemysis3now> <20140327125136.GC93483@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/27/2014 13:51, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:59:09PM +0100, Rusmir Dusko wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:16:02 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>> 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. >> >> True when is Upstream alive and not Port have one maintainer, then is good >> to have these Ports. >> >> Not all Ports must have one maintainer. Please not so simple deprecate good >> Port. > > Yes, my point exactly. I know some people think (and they have their merit) > that having 25K+ ports is unrealistic and quite a few of them are crap. (I > will probably elaborate more of this in reply to original thread from couple > of weeks ago; still catching up with my email backlog, sorry.) > > However, I do believe that we need to have a more formal set of rules when > it comes to ports deprecation (and subsequent removal), esp. given how small > is probation period now (typically one of two months). why is short probation period a problem? "svn revert" brings it right back if somebody cares enough to resurrect it. Most on probation have been either broken for months or untended for years. I'd bet 99% of these nobody hears a peep about when they are gone. For the remaining 1%: version control is there for them. Resurrection is a sign the port is actually wanted. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5334201D.8060704>