From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Sat Jan 23 11:01:18 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FFAA8E53D; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:01:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F9B5143F; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:01:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C13A43BB3; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:01:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r406959 - in head/math: . py-cdecimal To: Maxim Sobolev References: <201601230258.u0N2wKlQ026236@repo.freebsd.org> <56A3280F.5030005@FreeBSD.org> <56A33831.6000008@marino.st> Cc: koobs@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org Message-ID: <56A35D78.3040000@marino.st> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:01:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:01:18 -0000 On 1/23/2016 9:47 AM, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Would it make you happier if I take maintainership and drop it tomorrow? > :) Technically not forbidden. Just to give you some background, I used > to maintain few hundred ports back in the days, so I am very discreet now. I assume people use this trick often. It would make me happy to drop it after 1 year. It sounds like it won't require much maintenance so that shouldn't be a big deal. It's still sketchy but nobody can really say anything at that point. > > It just says about some rules being quite out of date / unflexible, > IMHO. As an average joe user, between port not being present and port > being maintained by community I'd definitely prefer the latter, as it > gives me a good chance that it would just work. It would have saved me > some time today (which is why I did it, not because I've had nothing > else better to do on Friday afternoon). And if it does not work, it > gives user incentive to file a PR. So it's win-win all over the place. > For myself, it just saves me a trouble to having another chunk of > private code in my own port repo. I am very happy with the requirement that new ports *must* be maintained. You are setting an example. Normal users (without your history and experience) see that it's possible to introduce unmaintained ports through bugzilla and will try it. We don't want that. I've seen this effect firsthand in pkgsrc. Believe me, you don't want to allow new ports to have no maintainer. It's a disaster. If nobody is willing to maintain it, it probably doesn't merit being in the collection. John