From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Sat Aug 20 14:50:53 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC670BC0BB9; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:50:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A6CF1220; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:50:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pa0-x232.google.com with SMTP id pp5so24501152pac.3; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 07:50:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v77OezdbPCRaXBYPUSpnzUEYmL5fonxhxAj64oZz4os=; b=sldpDSxnq5ZQACEpkKML04j/+Q/kuoisWHOvn9kbFBOYuTlQPfY32r+J9bNsXl8hcE QIQI53xzYsJe3JtmCuk2LOWlVLSmKmuJeb9uaxibPCLctvSGVYmfWLFM/pFY82K03pMt kkj+d5eFndgAR0L1c0tTsJibyh59lDDq+UV1nk5FSYgtb3B1n86SzODLZkkhsd39hyXU G9rrXeVEuOqyw4YZhhDMK77CYMC0ppoedOVOX+gsd9HxDI3wl7+Luy1SLCm05sfKfICE KNOUxiAfnFyIKWkAP+Hxgx8RTklP5xl284YtpaCSRaOcA++71rADbqYIuGgI/ZXsefYm x5eA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v77OezdbPCRaXBYPUSpnzUEYmL5fonxhxAj64oZz4os=; b=YjbISyBrKEfFkDXuetvzBm6I7/ToutbzwbMumEVIcN+yRyqwy6rY3pacb6/CRAiRPd vWfz+4BYEWyMExJ3aKvgR7gNGtoieZagZdj0KWVk5oTVqH6XD24A2YQ1mxPC5hFGoBTC 8ChyooydCTJvz1sWXDs9Eoaypf0YwuaLMsDEEZbBZUzXibkGJNaZHMnfpDjJNbRBdPxB E2HSTqveG2KvCXZqSuw1nJ70BSX2gl9kO9YZRBfeji8pqsyShm1xK1pJhr1rcboG4+CU No35H2diqWXD1TbP04MbmRpdE1WlkmK4br4bg2wYRTekZpAturC1Vs/ZAnZJE3+F6EG5 ceeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutFO+fRcO7bDOQRWTBtRaVDCp+47qMKdCaP25QilTF2BwHnRoC/9kYdllU+Lr5gXg== X-Received: by 10.66.123.42 with SMTP id lx10mr24158136pab.95.1471704653003; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 07:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:f985:3c4b:2a0c:8bea? (2001-44b8-31ae-7b01-f985-3c4b-2a0c-8bea.static.ipv6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:f985:3c4b:2a0c:8bea]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e72sm14652369pfb.49.2016.08.20.07.50.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Aug 2016 07:50:52 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r420508 - head/comms/hylafax References: <201608201241.u7KCfuEk049392@repo.freebsd.org> <20160820144244.GA3813@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org From: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 00:50:44 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/50.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160820144244.GA3813@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 14:50:53 -0000 On 21/08/2016 12:42 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:41:56PM +0000, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> New Revision: 420508 URL: >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/420508 >> >> Log: comms/hylafax: Mark Un'BROKEN, Take MAINTAINER'ship >> >> * Mark Un'BROKEN * Take MAINTAINERSHIP >> >> PR: 200922 Requested by: Dave > > Lack of *any* functional changes to this port (I was wondering why > port revision was bumped in this case) looks questinable; commit > message is banal (30/70 rule violation). Reading the PR just > confirmed my worries. On the basis of a user request to unmark the port broken, the change was reverted and I took maintainership to investigate the issue reports in more detail. Actual or potential user impact while that occurs is not warranted or necessary. I accept the commit log formatting criticisms, they were done hastily. > ./danfe >