From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep  6 07:24:53 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFEC1065670
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Tue,  6 Sep 2011 07:24:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CFE1504B1;
	Tue,  6 Sep 2011 07:24:52 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4E65CAC3.2040705@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:24:51 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110901 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru>
References: <4E64C077.8050403@yandex.ru>
	<CACi7718digBBkknROiiMXWKHj9J1dx7jZ_VRGD3Q-Pi6fpLDtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E656B6E.5080105@FreeBSD.org> <4E65C964.7070503@yandex.ru>
In-Reply-To: <4E65C964.7070503@yandex.ru>
X-Enigmail-Version: undefined
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: FreeBSD Ports Mailing List <ports@freebsd.org>,
	Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, wen heping <wenheping@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Maintainership of py-zopetesting and py-zopeevent
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:24:53 -0000

On 09/06/2011 00:19, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> we already have plenty of portnames with dot in them

That's not a good reason to add more.

I did read the rest of your post, and while I sympathize with your
arguments, I'm not convinced by them. The good news for you however is
that I'm not in charge of anything. :)


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/