From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Wed Sep 14 17:04:18 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 08073BDBECA; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:04:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: from anoxia.adamw.org (anoxia.adamw.org [104.225.8.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "anoxia.adamw.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 783B81DA1; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:04:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: by anoxia.adamw.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 45c4872f TLS version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:04:09 -0600 (MDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r422114 - head/misc/fortune_strfile From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: <7829a82e-7f83-33d1-54b5-fca53d072f4f@marino.st> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:04:07 -0600 Cc: Kurt Jaeger , Mark Linimon , Mathieu Arnold , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0057723D-3DDE-4B15-BD4D-CFEF5D247F98@adamw.org> References: <201609140545.u8E5jeBH058686@repo.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> To: marino@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) 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 17:04:18 -0000 > On 14 Sep, 2016, at 10:49, John Marino = 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