Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:20:57 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@freebsd.org> Cc: committers@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/comms/hylafax Message-ID: <12179.865495257@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Jun 1997 18:21:10 %2B0200." <199706041621.SAA02899@desk.jhs.no_domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
OK, I'll bell this cat.. First, there were too many mailing lists on the command line, especially when committers is a functional superset, so I've trimmed it in the interests of not mail-bombing people with multiple copies. > Would you please consider intructing asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) > to effect some or all (at your discretion, naturaly) : > - To restore from CVS Attic ports/comms/hylafax/ > - To re-commit the new port as ports/comms/hylafax4/ > - To consult & comply with the long established mail list > <hylafax@freebsd.org> in matters relating to FreeBSD Hylafax. First off, and just to clear this up in order to avoid future misunderstanding, we don't really "instruct" people to do things so much as we make strong suggestions, so it's not appropriate to ask core to take such direct action, and certainly not in the first round before any serious degree of intractability has been demonstrated by the "offending party." Ask us to argue your case for you and that's something else, something quite different from asking us to hit somebody with the big stick. Second, Satoshi is also the portsmeister, and that means that the rest of us have agreed to abide by his decisions where ports are concerned. He does a hell of a lot of work on ports, in turn, and we consider that a more than reasonable trade. If he's got the responsibility then he should also have the "executive oversight", after all, and if anyone "instructs" anyone in matters of the ports collection then it's the other way around. Finally, with regard to the hylafax mailing list, I do hope that you would not consider that an adequate replacement for subscription to the ports mailing list by all the interested parties. Your hylafax mailing list was created to facilitate out-of-band communication on hylafax, much as the inn, pine, jdk and other such users have their own special mailing lists to discuss matters pertaining directly to their areas of interest. With close to 1000 ports, I would never expect to have to inform anyone but ports@freebsd.org in the event of ANY ports change. It is simply not realistic to expect someone mucking with the freebsd ports collection to keep track of potentially hundreds of mailing lists, and so the rule goes like this: If you want to change a given port, you must first clear it with the MAINTAINER and with ports@freebsd.org, should that be different from the MAINTAINER. No other communication is required or expected. If you were the listed maintainer for hylafax then yes, Satoshi should have sought your approval. By the same token, anyone unable to take action on a port due to time constraints should also expect to be either removed or overridden as the maintainer if a reasonable time has passed and they've now turned into a bottleneck. I do not know if this was true in your case, but just to note that maintainer status can certainly be revoked for anyone not able/willing to keep it up-to-date. In any case, even if there were an issue with this, it should have been handled as an entirely separate issue and so long as you were legitimately listed as the maintainer, you should have been consulted and given veto power over the move. Given all of this, I would _suggest_ that Satoshi do as requested and commit the new hylafax port under hylafax4 / resurrect the old, as suggested. If Satoshi wants to ignore this suggestion then that's still his right, however, as the portsmeister. That's what being the portsmeister means. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12179.865495257>