Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 23:53:31 +0100 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org> Cc: "Dan Mahoney (Ports)" <freebsd@gushi.org>, Daniel Engberg <diizzy@freebsd.org>, Freebsd Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Regarding port(s) you maintain in FreeBSD ports collection Message-ID: <8BD6CB40-7E3E-4CFD-B184-CE641675A611@grem.de> In-Reply-To: <20211107224029.GB45416@eureka.lemis.com> References: <20211107224029.GB45416@eureka.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 7. Nov 2021, at 23:40, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Sunday, 7 November 2021 at 20:27:01 +0100, Michael Gmelin wro= te: >>> On 7. Nov 2021, at 20:06, Dan Mahoney (Ports) <freebsd@gushi.org> wrote:= >>>>> On Nov 7, 2021, at 7:04 AM, Daniel Engberg <diizzy@FreeBSD.org> wrote:= >>>>> You're receiving this mail because you have one or more ports that >>>>> are affected by the change proposed in >>>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D32880 ... >>>=20 >>> This caused me some headscratching (wait, is my port here but not >>> in the list? Am I mailed because a port here is a dependency of my >>> port?) >>=20 >>> I???ve concluded that instead I???m receiving this mail because you >>> sent it to the entire ports mailing list. Am I wrong? >>=20 >> At least one of the affected ports is maintained by ports@ (=3Dunmaintain= ed). >=20 > That makes it rather pointless to say "because you have one or more > ports". Now *everybody* has to go through the list to find whether > they're affected or not. Not really, as I assume everyone maintaining these ports received a separate= email addressed to the address used in the MAINTAINER field. That=E2=80=99s= consistent with other emails received on ports@ (like update notices from p= ortscout). > It would have been better to exclude ports@ > from the list. Or change the wording for that specific email, I was also slightly confused = and checked the list of affected ports, just to make sure - also as a consu= mer of ports. > But what I see is that really only ports@ was on the > To: list. >=20 Which makes sense, as those emails were sent to maintainers (one email per m= aintainer). Again, that=E2=80=99s consistent with other communication to por= ts@, even though in this case, some specific wording would=E2=80=99ve helped= . Just to be clear, I only explained what happened there, I didn=E2=80=99t sen= d those emails or was involved in any way. -m
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8BD6CB40-7E3E-4CFD-B184-CE641675A611>