From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 27 13:45:31 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id A864AA00; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:45:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:45:31 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: marino@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: <20140327134531.GA16245@FreeBSD.org> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <20140327125909.6b102c8d@nemysis3now> <20140327125136.GC93483@FreeBSD.org> <5334201D.8060704@marino.st> <20140327131819.GE93483@FreeBSD.org> <53342633.2090409@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53342633.2090409@marino.st> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rusmir Dusko , Antoine Brodin , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:45:31 -0000 On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:22:59PM +0100, John Marino wrote: > On 3/27/2014 14:18, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > 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. > > Safe enough from what exactly? I mean it gives more time for someone, or one of the Kato's slaves to come around and fix it. > If you give people 3 extra months, they just squander 3 extra months. > There is zero long term impact. You keep conveniently not acknowledging > that most of the candidates on the deprecation list fully deserve to be > on that list and have been ignored for years. I am acknowledging this fact; I just don't see a point of removing ports that build and package fine just because they are unmaintained. I am not saying that all of those ports are useful for me, but once in a while I'm faced with the fact that port I need right now was deprecated and removed for no real reason. I don't like that. And just to end this argument (I know we've been through this before): I guess two months of probation is fine with me for *broken* ports, and while I'd be more comfortable with six, I won't eat my heart over it. ./danfe