From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Nov 25 11:26:19 2002 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 A5BEA37B401; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from wwweasel.geeksrus.net (wwweasel.geeksrus.net [64.8.210.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E706A43EA9; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:26:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alane@wwweasel.geeksrus.net) Received: from wwweasel.geeksrus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wwweasel.geeksrus.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAPJPvUw061189; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from alane@wwweasel.geeksrus.net) Received: (from alane@localhost) by wwweasel.geeksrus.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAPJPvZN061188; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from alane) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:25:57 -0500 From: AlanE To: Anders Nordby Cc: Dan Langille , ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreshPorts sanity testing - should errors be sent to committers? Message-ID: <20021125192557.GB59079@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> Reply-To: alane@geeksrus.net Mail-Followup-To: Anders Nordby , Dan Langille , ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20021124112140.J39895-100000@12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com> <3DE22FC8.10368.D3893A69@localhost> <20021125192433.GB55119@totem.fix.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021125192433.GB55119@totem.fix.no> X-message-flag: Every program expands until it can send mail. Except Exchange Server. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:24:33PM +0100, Anders Nordby wrote: >Hi, > >On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:12:24PM -0500, Dan Langille wrote: >>>> I wish to raise the issue of making this feature non-opt-in. >>> >>> Not only no, but hell no. >> A feature is available which improves quality, catches simple syntax >> errors immediately, and has zero affect on those who do their work >> error-free.. Why do you object to that? > >Ports committers and other committers should be free to choose their >error checking methods on their own. At least make it opt-out. I prefer opt-under. If you and your port can make it under the limbo bar, then you won't be strip searched and your port won't be checked, detected, selected, and neglected. -- AlanE (Alan Eldridge), who likes fixing weird distributed systems bugs. Unix/C(++) IT Pro for 20 yrs, desperately seeking employment in NYC. (http://wwweasel.geeksrus.net/~alane/resume.rtf) KDE, KDE-FreeBSD Teams (http://www.kde.org, http://freebsd.kde.org/) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message