From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 19 13:47:18 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCD039D
 for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:47:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 716AC1219
 for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:47:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (ip70-178-7-237.ks.ks.cox.net [70.178.7.237])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AAF438BC;
 Thu, 19 Dec 2013 07:47:06 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <52B2F8D9.8020902@marino.st>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:47:05 +0100
From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com>
Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS,
 I'm unsubscribing
References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st>
 <CAO+PfDfV6qdnNMgfrMDj=QumP4yc+RWUop_iNybTomObVwaAnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131219135421.63d7cd20@X220.alogt.com> <52B2EECA.10908@marino.st>
 <20131219214150.4dd55b09@X220.alogt.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131219214150.4dd55b09@X220.alogt.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com>,
 "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:47:18 -0000

On 12/19/2013 14:41, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
>>> you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
>>> broken has to work. 
>>
>> I build the entire port tree several times a month.  I can tell you
>> from experience that this assumption is not valid.
> 
> so, you want to say, that all the little problems which are solved
> mainly by people who are not the maintainer should become PRs?

Yes, that's the point.
The GNATs system hold searchable information for others that care:
A) A PR has already been filed
B) A fix may already be proposed
C) The state of the fix
D) Whether the maintainer is delinquent.  After a "timeout" (two weeks)
other maintainers can take over any submitted fix.  Without a PR, we
don't know the port maintainer is delinquent, so we assume he/she is
not.  You have to submit the PR to start to two-week countdown.
E) Many improvements come from people that are not maintainers.


> The sender of an e-mail does not need the majority but a single
> individual with the proper hint.

For the reasons above, a PR is still better.  The rest of us have
visibility if we care, and the maintainer still gets an email from the
GNATS system.

John