From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Wed Sep 14 16:40:37 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@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 9EE5BBDB7A3; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:40:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fc.opsec.eu (fc.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200:4::4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 498141CA7; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:40:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pi by fc.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1bkDES-0009SU-P0; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:40:20 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:40:20 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Mark Linimon Cc: marino@freebsd.org, Mathieu Arnold , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422114 - head/misc/fortune_strfile Message-ID: <20160914164020.GD23634@fc.opsec.eu> References: <201609140545.u8E5jeBH058686@repo.freebsd.org> <40537f68-1d2b-194c-55d5-b133d743ed3e@marino.st> <20160914123128.GA32707@lonesome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160914123128.GA32707@lonesome.com> X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:40:37 -0000 Hi! > My own opinion is that 4814 is way too many. And, I don't buy the > argument that some have made that "unmaintained ports are better > maintained than some maintained ports". We have the data to go from opinion to knowledge by analyzing the commit logs etc. Analyzing it is difficult, but maybe it helps to find out where we stand. -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !