From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 18 11:45:03 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC7EFF6 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay06.ispgateway.de (smtprelay06.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9822C15EE for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [80.67.16.118] (helo=webmailfront01.ispgateway.de) by smtprelay06.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1VtFOq-0003MX-3Y for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:34:48 +0100 Received: from his1.his.de (his1.his.de [192.124.237.237]) by webmail.df.eu (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:34:47 +0100 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:34:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20131218123447.Horde.eGxQRPvmEcSlgsi4V4UKGw1@webmail.df.eu> From: Marcus von Appen To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> <20131218064459.GA5354@tuxaco.net> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.0.4) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Df-Sender: ZnJlZWJzZEBzeXNmYXVsdC5vcmc= X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: mva@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:45:03 -0000 Markiyan Kushnir : > 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