From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 21 17:32:27 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1A81CA7 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C16B9159E for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t3LHWR7m068047 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:32:27 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199582] ports-mgmt/portmaster ADOPT (take MAINTAINER) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:32:28 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: portmaster@bsdforge.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:32:28 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199582 --- Comment #7 from Chris Hutchinson --- (In reply to John Marino from comment #5) > There's lots of negatives to you doing a poor job. > > 1) By you picking it up 2 days after it's drop, you prevent others from > being a maintainer -- and potentially people that are more qualified. So by > applying a first-come-first-serve approach rather than an "maintainer will > be selected from pool of applicants" approach has an obvious downside I still don't see myself as unqualified. > > 2) portmaster is widely hated by the pool of committers. Nobody is going to > be happy to see it languish rather than be eliminated. So if you aren't up > to the task, there's a clear downside if the inevitable is to remove it. I only offered that, because you seem so adamant about my inability to maintain it. *Not* because I think you may be correct in that regard. > > 3) Portmaster is hindering people from using proper, officially supported > tools. This is another reason committers would like to see it go if it's > not correctly supported. > > 4) Users are going to stick with portmaster but if it's not properly > supported you are not doing them any favors. they'd be better served to > move now. > > See? Yes. > > Have you really thought about these aspects? Yes. Except that I haven't considered the "committers hate portmaster" aspect, except that you brought it up earlier. Which also would include that affect on the others you mention. So am I to understand that *potentially* making portmaster better would also leave it "hated"? Is there no salvation for portmaster? This seems part of the larger message here. --Chris -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.