From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 7 09:30:06 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC54216A4D8 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 09:30:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7640243D68 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 09:30:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j479U6gT071505 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 09:30:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j479U6FR071501; Sat, 7 May 2005 09:30:06 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 09:30:06 GMT Message-Id: <200505070930.j479U6FR071501@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu Subject: Re: docs/80681: articles/problem-reports: don't tell people they should sumbit a PR each time they see an outdated port X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 09:30:06 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/80681; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: David Adam Cc: FreeBSD gnats submit , freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, pav@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/80681: articles/problem-reports: don't tell people they should sumbit a PR each time they see an outdated port Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 12:22:26 +0300 On Sat, 7 May 2005 15:10:12 +0800 (WST) David Adam wrote: > > > Why not just "If you are reporting a new version of a port, try to contact > > > the port's maintainer first."? > > > > So that I don't see PR but post on ports@ ? Well, it will be an > > improvement, at least no one will have to close them. > > I have two primary problems with the proposed patch > - It's poorly written. This can be fixed. I hereby promise not to write any PR after 12p.m. localtime :) > - The general message that it gives is not one I think is beneficial. We > should be trying to remove barriers for people to report problems, not > institute them. You're somehow right here. > I can understand that you want to reduce the amount of waffle in the PR > database, but I think your proposed change is too complicated and too > negative. > > Now, I am not a committer nor subscribed to ports@, but surely hitting the > Delete key once or twice a week more often is not that huge a price to > pay? I remember having a discussion about this subject some time ago with pav@ (cc'ed). The only reason for "outdated announce" PR is that maybe someday someone other that a commiter (as a commiter is busy enough) will start looking in the PR database for something to do; now we all know how interested is the mythical Someone to do just that. IMO the practical value of this PR equals zero (even less since they generate supplementary work for the commiters - and the typical wait time for a non-commiter maintainer update is about a week this days). Now if the port is maintained, to have a PR announcing you there's a new version is usually frustrating: you know there's a new version, you probably have worked with the developer on it, you're probably testing to see there's no regression, etc. So this kind of PRs do the same good as a simple email (which can be useful if you maintain a large number of ports or for the ports that are updated rarely - I use a monthly cron job to remind me of them). > I propose that this patch be shortened to: > > --- article.sgml.orig 2005-01-15 10:16:42.000000000 +0800 > +++ article.sgml 2005-05-07 15:07:06.622424000 +0800 > @@ -106,7 +106,8 @@ > Notification of updates to externally maintained > software (mainly ports, but also externally maintained base > system components such as BIND or various GNU > - utilities). > + utilities). If you are reporting a new version of a > + port, try contacting the port's maintainer first. > > At least this could be committed. -- IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"