From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Fri Apr 1 10:09:04 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 39969AEB645; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:09:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C851888; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:09:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix, from userid 80) id A5CF143CF8; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 05:09:02 -0500 (CDT) To: Thomas Zander , John Marino Subject: Re: svn commit: r412296 - head/lang/rust MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 12:09:02 +0200 From: "John Marino (FreeBSD)" Cc: Jan Beich , "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org Mail-Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <201603312004.u2VK4n5n028013@repo.freebsd.org> <7485ef18e1261c87b17a9c23da01259a@secure.marino.st> <1d06dfb14f40d98439d2f1f759375ada@secure.marino.st> Message-ID: X-Sender: freebsd.contact@marino.st User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.1 X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:09:04 -0000 On 4/1/2016 11:53 AM, Thomas Zander wrote: > On 1 April 2016 at 11:11, John Marino (FreeBSD) > wrote: > >> This is what your message is losing. The implication is that DF >> brings no >> benefit to ports but that's simply not the case. > > John, for Christ's sake. Stop twisting words. > I did not imply "that DF brings no benefit to ports". > I will now stop discussing this topic with you in public. > I did not intend to offend. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply it, but that's what I inferred and probably what other people inferred. It sounds like you are basically saying "keep DF stuff out of ports". If you are aware of a great benefit DF is bringing, then that translates to a 1-way relationship (e.g. give us all you want, but we aren't giving anything back). The other possibility is that you aren't aware of the level of benefit, so DF seems like a parasite. Is there another permutation? To be unaware of the benefits is the better image than the other! Anyway, sorry to aggravate you. We are trying to keep DF support non-invasive and unoffensive. If you have ideas that enhance collaboration rather than encourage separate efforts, let me know. John