Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 23:06:37 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Olivier Certner <olivier.freebsd@free.fr> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Python 2.7 removal outline Message-ID: <feba494f-b1ea-5bbe-0457-1c85ab08041a@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <20210325150320.f74kx2uor4dwl5y5@aniel.nours.eu> References: <20210324130347.GA29020@freefall.freebsd.org> <10693816.1udYB6hd2u@ravel> <20210325150320.f74kx2uor4dwl5y5@aniel.nours.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25/03/2021 16:03, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > I will only here answer about the quality of the communication of portmgr, yes > there is room of improvement in general in the current portmgr team as of how we > do communicate about plans and policy and we are working on it. "There is room of improvement" are too kind words. It happened in the past and it is back again. As explained by Olivier and the others in this thread there are no clear policy written and explained to the community, there are mixed terms "all" / "but some exceptions" chosen by what criteria, defined by what policy? It is really annoying for maintainers like Olivier to spend some time to provide solution for port useful for others (Pale Moon and Tauthon in this case) and have it removed from the tree after 4 hours without prior discussion or notice. Who will benefit from this behaviors? It all seems more like witch hunting than any rational moves for community profit. Telling users that they can maintain it locally is like p***ing them in face. And until overlays are not fully supported with poudriere options and easily defined exceptions for MOVED entries it is really not for everybody to use overlays in current state (overlays are poor documented at least). Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?feba494f-b1ea-5bbe-0457-1c85ab08041a>