Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:07:49 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, games@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r371758 - in head/games/djgame2: . files Message-ID: <54536D85.9030003@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20141031100935.GG41348@hades.panopticon> References: <201410301626.s9UGQWQk014377@svn.freebsd.org> <5452BBE6.2020908@marino.st> <20141031003321.GF41348@hades.panopticon> <54533AC1.9080401@marino.st> <20141031100935.GG41348@hades.panopticon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/31/2014 11:09, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > * John Marino (freebsd.contact@marino.st) wrote: > >>> I've already written in the PR: since you've submitted it, please >>> provide additional info by checking whether the games works - it >>> should be trivial. No, games@ is not obliged to do investigation >>> instead of you. In fact, there's no games@ team as such. >> >> That is absolute bull****. >> If a member of games@ revives a port under the games@ maintainership, >> you bet that he and the entire games@ team is responsible for ensuring >> the port is valid *BEFORE* resurrecting it. > > Bull*** is your attitude. > First, if you don't like what Rusmir did, discuss it with him. No, > you won't blame games@ or me (as I take it personally) for it. > Next, nobody is obliged to anyone while working on enthusiasm, > especially not implicitely, based on what someone other did. > Also, as far as I know, I'm the only one working on > collectively/un-maintained games as of now, and I already have pretty > much work to do. > Finally, not related to what was said, usual problem report rules > apply - if you see a problem, investigate it as much as you can before > reporting. > > You could just spend 5 minutes of your time to investigate that, but > you're instead blaming others and making them do work for you. That's > not how it works. > > As a side note, if you think games@ is not supposed to work that way, > I'm not against having it disbanded given other members do not object - > while the team is useful for PR management, if it makes people think > others are obliged to do work for them, or the false feeling that games@ > ports are well maintained (which is physically impossible given the ports > number and games@ team size), I'm against having the team. You have revealed a lot of issues. If the MAINTAINER field is defined by anything other than "ports@FreeBSD.org", then it is considered fully maintained. I expect from any maintainer that they confirm their port is usable and specifically not rely on users to tell them that. If games@ team is unwilling to perform even the most basic of maintainer duties and are instead limiting their efforts to fixing build problems, then I implore games@ not to claim the port. They can fix the port building just fine when ports@FreeBSD.org owns the port. Moreover, I've been reluctant to make changes to games@ ports because I thought they were maintained. >From what you've just said, I should consider *all* ports that list MAINTAINER as "games@FreeBSD.org" equivalent to unmaintained and just commit to them at will without consultation. I am also vehemently against 1-man "teams" so if you are effectively "games@" (which you imply saying you take it personally) then the team should be disbanded based on that fact alone. If games@ really only exists for PRs, then we can handle that in bugzilla and just add a "games" flag or something. Talk to mva about that. Claiming a port is maintained when it really isn't is a disservice to all of us. And this is not about "working for us", it's about fulfilling the basic obligations of being a maintainer. Finally, I 100% disagree with your view of the actual episode. This port was fully deleted. Rusmir had the obligation to make sure that a resurrection was valid, *NOT* us. That was *HIS* responsibility, not ours. This basically a case of somebody relying on others to clean up his mess. Not cool, and it's unfortunate that the rest of games@ had to get pulled into it but that's something you have to take up with him. He represents your team. Based on this, I think we are better off if games@ releases the ports they are unwilling to properly maintain. Leaving maintainer as "ports@FreeBSD.org" is more useful and accurate for those ports. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54536D85.9030003>