Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:18:19 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rusmir Dusko <nemysis@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: <20140327131819.GE93483@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5334201D.8060704@marino.st> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <20140327125909.6b102c8d@nemysis3now> <20140327125136.GC93483@FreeBSD.org> <5334201D.8060704@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:57:01PM +0100, John Marino wrote: > On 3/27/2014 13:51, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > 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 or two months). > > why is short probation period a problem? Because I feel that two months still lie within three sigmas, while six months is safe enough. > "svn revert" brings it right back if somebody cares enough to resurrect > it. [...] > 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. Yeah, except that people are not always care to perform archaeology that is in order when they're adding new port over previously removed (example: `x11-themes/nimbus'; I'm still not sure what is the best way to clean this mess up). ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140327131819.GE93483>