From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan 26 02:01:18 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52C2D857
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358D21B63
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:01:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-76-21-10-192.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
 [76.21.10.192])
 by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3865E1A3C19;
 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52E46C6C.6060001@mu.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:01:16 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?
References: <CAHcXP+f6e-t--XbQPTH1goJp_CL7P=zTj5trZVWd4YZ_EsO9gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGBxaX=t3e5SXoBDHnzAbx=SWbEFMJHNPQL13FnwNgKWM3gCiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHcXP+ew5qt5hc9Y+R_njPkfhUMsDDAqNk9aYSacV4PwBmqjfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGBxaXnXwo4JxnRdffZfdvfETfhgJNkFM-N23H1SOT0G3-oMwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE-m3X2dQTTsbrTJg2iPT3qkfq7h9U8oGbRZXGAXH+J2T4MFNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHcXP+dtHPHT+FD8RdcqhGANBPf1Gk4N4coEpZY-eAuQE3iZtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE-m3X2rWk-0k_yH1PK0iN_5YhvSh1UsV0VCrroJq==687X1ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com>
 <CAGBxaXnfb2yPZZCaf6mYzASzT13b68A8iPT6eUwUdU9W1ya_Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com>
 <CAGBxaXkCWAAfA+7x9-icTwO4Vd78EGOeh5-4eG3DUJ_gGVHT1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <52E45137.5070703@rawbw.com>
In-Reply-To: <52E45137.5070703@rawbw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bernhard_Fr=F6hlich?= <decke@bluelife.at>,
 Big Lebowski <spankthespam@gmail.com>, ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:01:18 -0000

On 1/25/14 4:05 PM, Yuri wrote:
> On 01/25/2014 15:48, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
>> Git hup (or*ANY*  remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO
>
> But both Debian and Fedora do this with automated remote testing, and 
> they don't seem to complain.
> How is our ports different in this respect?
>
I don't get this either.

-- 
Alfred Perlstein