Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:46:12 +0000 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ruby@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Port Management Team <portmgr@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: portupgrade Message-ID: <20100914084612.GC13222@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20100913173804.d4aa5eb9.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C8EB9BC.4020208@p6m7g8.com> <20100913173804.d4aa5eb9.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think the general question is, "who really wants to maintain portupgrade right now." The main thing for me is that the PRs ought to be assigned somewhere. If no one has time to go through them, let's just reassign them to ports@. (Yes, I understand that portupgrade PRs are a total pain in the butt: a combination of problems that may affect many users; problems that only affect edge conditions; and problems where the port metadata itself is at fault, not portupgrade. Nevertheless, if no one is going to work on them, assigning them to ruby@ merely misleads our users.) I was never a fan of it being assigned to ruby@, since I'm not much of a fan of assigning ports to mailing lists anyways. The nicest way to put it is that the results are "mixed". stas, who else other than yourself is working on it? Do we really think it has a future? (Having said that, I still rely on it, so I'm not trying to make a judgement here.) mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100914084612.GC13222>