Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:45:46 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Antoine Brodin <antoine@FreeBSD.org>, Rusmir Dusko <nemysis@FreeBSD.org>, Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@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: <20140327154546.GB49042@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <53343F19.2050304@marino.st> References: <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <20140327125909.6b102c8d@nemysis3now> <20140327125136.GC93483@FreeBSD.org> <5334201D.8060704@marino.st> <20140327131819.GE93483@FreeBSD.org> <53342633.2090409@marino.st> <20140327134531.GA16245@FreeBSD.org> <53342D12.5060600@marino.st> <tLFIc4RCIxChhQlvaUAChP9qt7o@DNCjBQ0OuJ6NIRuXBT5yrvdcuOs> <53343F19.2050304@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 04:09:13PM +0100, John Marino wrote: > The ports are required to be staged and I suspect without exception. If > the port is not staged, it is not "legal". Lack of staging is a > legitimate reason to remove it (although when is debatable). And I > completely disagree with Danfe that we as a group are expected to stage > unmaintained ports or ports belonging to others. I am not going to > stage Danfe's ports, no way. That's his job and I expect him to do it > or release the port. Absolutely; at this point I'm pretty close to staging all of mine (and a bunch of few others I touch for unrelated reasons during my random sweeps over the Collection). I am not saying that "we as a group are expected to stage unmaintained ports or ports belonging to others"; I don't know why you got that idea from what I said earlier. I remember that moment; I just never had time to explain myself. In short, I'd rather do staging as part of other changes over given port, as most likely I'd be dissatisfied with their overall quality. Others put staging on its own on top of their priority queue, and want to push it down ASAP. That's fine, but I rarely stage a port just because it needs staging. Once I touch it, it must be close to perfect (unless stated otherwise in the commit log), and that requires more work and time. > Obviously this is spring-cleaning exercise enabled by the stage support > regulation. That's how we notice the working ports not maintained for > 12+ years. After staging, I doubt you'll see such aggressive remove for > a long time. I sincerely hope so. Yes again, I don't see anything wrong with ports being under ports@ for 12+ years (or 42+, same thing). ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140327154546.GB49042>