Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:05 -0500 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422154 - head/misc/fortune_strfile Message-ID: <82525c0e-187a-eebf-c1b5-5d86175bd3d4@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <bfcb9d00-8a2c-0b01-3b4f-5bb2f268896b@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609141925.u8EJPJb8077087@repo.freebsd.org> <2be2dfc7-2be7-aaf3-7510-58279dea9e37@marino.st> <e2accd31-64bf-014a-d182-ab21c07ebf9b@FreeBSD.org> <bec7888a-b194-aea6-617d-07877854c841@marino.st> <bfcb9d00-8a2c-0b01-3b4f-5bb2f268896b@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/14/2016 14:51, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 9/14/16 12:48 PM, John Marino wrote: >> On 9/14/2016 14:44, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> On 9/14/16 12:28 PM, John Marino wrote: >>>> On 9/14/2016 14:25, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>>>> Author: bdrewery >>>>> Date: Wed Sep 14 19:25:19 2016 >>>>> New Revision: 422154 >>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/422154 >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> Mark deprecated as it has no maintainer and is already in base. >>>>> >>>>> With hat: portmgr >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Really? >>>> >>>> Very mature and classy. >>>> I solved a problem and you're flexing muscles. >>>> >>>> Are all portmanagers on board with this? >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> P.S. If you want, I'll get into a commit war and take it back. >>>> You'll win. >>>> >>> >>> Ports need maintainers. It is standard practice to deprecate ports >>> without a maintainer, though usually after a much longer time frame. We >>> can either do this right away or let this rot for that period and waste >>> time on the package build cluster. Portmgr's who have weighed in on >>> this are in agreement that the port never should have been committing >>> and dropped like it was, and there is growing consensus that it should >>> just be deleted. So I've marked it deprecated. >>> >>> It's also questionable why we need this at all since it is in base >>> already and is not receiving updates. If we had a packaged base system >>> it would perhaps make sense to have a port, but we're not there yet. I >>> have not seen any valid justification for the port in the first place. >>> >>> Also, there are no "laws" here except for the CoC. There are only >>> conventions and guidelines, and portmgr has the ultimate say over ports >>> as a whole. This clearly was committed/dropped against the spirit of >>> the conventions, regardless of any pedantic reading of any guideline. >>> >> >> I find it extremely doubtful you don't understand the point of the fix. >> I'm trying to decide whether or not to start shucking off many more >> (all?) of the 70 ports that I current maintain because I really don't >> need this vindictive grief. I thought we were past all this. >> >> JOhn >> > > John, > > Please take a deep breath. This is not personal, please do not make it so. > > Please review https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html > > "Do not make it personal. Do not take it personally." > > I think you and Antoine might have just made my decision for me. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?82525c0e-187a-eebf-c1b5-5d86175bd3d4>