Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:15:43 -0700 From: Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dropping maintainership of my ports Message-ID: <20110427071543.GD73524@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <4DB7B75C.7080902@marino.st> References: <20110427014343.GJ38579@comcast.net> <BANLkTim0SBHNaUVhN0X9QvVm2Y_vKOf7EA@mail.gmail.com> <20110427060917.GB73524@comcast.net> <4DB7B75C.7080902@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue 26 Apr 2011 at 23:27:40 PDT John Marino wrote: > >You're just sulking because your idea of identifying popular ports >wasn't met with enthusiasm. > No, it's more than that. I got the distinct impression that many of the committers would be unhappy if I took maintainership of some of the ports I might identify as "popular", because it would interfere with their plans to trim the portstree. Re-read the thread. At every point I'm talking about looking for ports I (and others) might want to maintain, as a service to their users. Now ask yourself why I've been getting so much resistance to that, when we keep hearing how deprecated ports can be easily resurrected if someone steps up to maintain them? Every response from the committers ignored what I said I was trying to do, and instead repeated the same old arguments about stale, unfetchable, broken or superceded ports. That "talking points" response tells me that they didn't want me doing what I was doing to buck an already-established policy of letting unmaintained ports die unless and until someone complains. Today wasn't the first time I've had this discussion with them. But it was the last straw as far as I'm concerned.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110427071543.GD73524>