From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 4 14:25:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BB416A4CE; Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E1943D41; Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@dougbarton.net) Received: from dougbarton.net (c-24-130-160-161.we.client2.attbi.com[24.130.160.161]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040404212540016003f30oe> (Authid: domain_name_tsar); Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:25:41 +0000 Message-ID: <40707D53.6060601@DougBarton.net> Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:25:39 -0700 From: Doug Barton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040307 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Rodrigues References: <20040404023418.GA37816@crodrigues.org> <20040404025156.GA29009@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040404030247.GA38436@crodrigues.org> <20040404033602.GA29488@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040404082956.GA39680@crodrigues.org> In-Reply-To: <20040404082956.GA39680@crodrigues.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: ade@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Problems with USE_AUTOMAKE_VER variable X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:25:42 -0000 Craig Rodrigues wrote: > That's fine, and I understand that such infrastructural work needs to > be done. But would it kill you guys to send an e-mail to the port maintainer > telling them what commits you are doing? No, it wouldn't. This has come up many times before, and it's astonishing to me that some members of the ports team (especially the portsmgr team) continue to be so disrespectful. There is a difference between the need to get _approval_ (which I agree could delay needed changes unnecessarily), and _notice_. In fact, this particular situation could have been vastly improved if notice had been given since the changes in question actually broke many ports. I think that the absolute bare minimum for sweeping changes like this would be notification to ports@, followed by say 48 hours to give people a chance to react. Frankly, I don't see how an e-mail to the maintainers would be that overwhelming a burden either. If you can't figure out how to extract all the maintainer e-mail addresses from the Makefiles you're editing and feed them to sendmail, you probably shouldn't be doing sweeping ports changes. By telling people what they're doing in advance, I think that certain members of the ports team may be surprised how much help they get, and how many good ideas other than their own are out there. Doug -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough