From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Fri Aug 10 10:10:55 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5599D1065422; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:10:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09A5583793; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:10:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 00DE212CDE; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:10:54 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Mark Felder Cc: Adam Weinberger , Ryan Steinmetz , Mathieu Arnold , "ports-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: svn commit: r476670 - in head/devel: . rubygem-solve Message-ID: <20180810101054.GA55871@FreeBSD.org> References: <201808081953.w78Jr68X078029@repo.freebsd.org> <20180808202929.GA63276@exodus.zi0r.com> <20180808213446.gktmjqcyrfhjkrlk@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20180808215702.GB52659@exodus.zi0r.com> <8632EEE8-AFFE-4BE6-8E58-CE83F7C9036E@feld.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8632EEE8-AFFE-4BE6-8E58-CE83F7C9036E@feld.me> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 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, 10 Aug 2018 10:10:55 -0000 On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 07:30:28AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > Adam, please stop. You cannot honestly expect committers to invent > descriptions for ports that have zero documentation. Of course we can; in fact, that's their direct responsibility. If one had ported a piece of software, they are expected to know when does it do or why is it useful to have in the collection, and be able to express this knowledge in a few sentences. I utterly fail to understand what's so hard about this? > I have plenty of ports myself that only exist in the tree because I > had to chase dependencies for the software I intended to port. Most of > these are libraries that have non-descript or "too-clever" names and > of which I have no idea what their function is. So you're bringing potentially dangerous or malicious software in the collection, how nice. > It is not my responsibility nor the responsibility of any committer > to fix this problem. It is your and others' direct responsibility if you offer a piece of software to our users. You don't have to audit the entire source code but at least basic understanding of what are you adding is certainly in order. ./danfe