Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:04:07 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: Kurt Jaeger <pi@FreeBSD.org>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, 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: <0057723D-3DDE-4B15-BD4D-CFEF5D247F98@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <7829a82e-7f83-33d1-54b5-fca53d072f4f@marino.st> References: <201609140545.u8E5jeBH058686@repo.freebsd.org> <eb09770a-b234-f889-2f2c-d6127ab76cc7@FreeBSD.org> <40537f68-1d2b-194c-55d5-b133d743ed3e@marino.st> <20160914123128.GA32707@lonesome.com> <20160914164020.GD23634@fc.opsec.eu> <7829a82e-7f83-33d1-54b5-fca53d072f4f@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 14 Sep, 2016, at 10:49, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> = wrote: >=20 > On 9/14/2016 11:40, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> Hi! >>=20 >>> 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". >>=20 >> 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. >=20 >=20 > I don't think that's necessary to get the actual numbers. > While it's clearly true that some unmaintained ports (aka maintained = by ports@FreeBSD.org) are better maintained than a significant number of = maintained ports, I think most people would agree having a maintainer is = the best situation. >=20 > In this particular case: > 1) I don't maintain any fortune ports > 2) I don't use any fortune ports > 3) I don't care if all the fortune ports are deleted > 4) The port is about as trivial as they come. >=20 > I was only fixing a problem that I identified that should have been = fixed long before. >=20 > If there was a rule that said I had to maintain the port for 1-week or = 1-month or even 6-months, then I'm just dropping the port the next day = after the expiration period. It's better to give somebody that actually = does care a chance to adopt it (the most likely being one of the fortune = port maintainers). >=20 > Finally, most of the games ports are intentionally unmaintained. = Since strfile has its origin in games, I really didn't see a distinction = with fortune_strfile and any of those games. Hi, This whole argument is kindof silly. John is being told that ports = should be maintained for a minimum arbitrary amount of time that's up to = the committer, but that he didn't pick the right minimum arbitrary = amount of time that was up to him. I agree with Mark that the PHB doesn't need to be an endless collection = of rules that cover every possibility, but I disagree that this = particular issue doesn't belong in there. I will agree with Mat that 1 day is not enough time, because somebody = needs to have ownership if users report problems that the committer = didn't think of. That said, John is very responsive and if users = reported problems I have no doubt that he'd address it quickly and = properly. The PHB should say: The right amount of time that a new port should be maintained is at = least long enough to verify that there are no build failures on any = platforms, and that end-users have had a chance to report failures that = they encounter in real-world use. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0057723D-3DDE-4B15-BD4D-CFEF5D247F98>