Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:34:47 +0100 From: Marcus von Appen <mva@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing Message-ID: <20131218123447.Horde.eGxQRPvmEcSlgsi4V4UKGw1@webmail.df.eu> In-Reply-To: <CACvtUJdQL1N59Nn12MBu6NHiQAK3r_%2BBq0RArs99iNK4iOjweA@mail.gmail.com> References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> <20131218064459.GA5354@tuxaco.net> <CACvtUJdQL1N59Nn12MBu6NHiQAK3r_%2BBq0RArs99iNK4iOjweA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Markiyan Kushnir <markiyan.kushnir@gmail.com>: > It sounds like a need for a more grained structure of the > ports-related communication, just because the community is growing. > Very often there is a need to discuss one's issue in a list prior to > filing a PR. And yes, *discuss*, I agree with John, people should show > they want to discuss their failed builds, whatever. > > I think automated failure reports (ports-qat) would easily be assigned > to a separate list. > > I would suggest at least the following divisions: ports-questions@ > would be for things like howtos, problems with managing ports, > upgrading, versioning, etc. ports-devel@ for all sorts of ports > build/install issues (port maintainers would be the primary > responders), and ports-auto@ for automated repots like QAT. And the > current ports@ would be aliased to ports-questions@. There's already ports-bugs@ for issues with ports (see the info on http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs). And this also would be the correct address for QAT reports, which are actually spamming the ports@ list (also imho). Personally, I do not think that we need yet another list :-). Cheers Marcus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131218123447.Horde.eGxQRPvmEcSlgsi4V4UKGw1>