From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 19 15:06:23 2013 Return-Path: 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 0623239B; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:06:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (smtp3-g21.free.fr [IPv6:2a01:e0c:1:1599::12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3A3186E; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:06:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldfaithful.bebik.local (unknown [82.227.164.69]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E5CA6259; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:06:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by oldfaithful.bebik.local (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5A4D7916168; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:59:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:59:15 +0100 From: Rodrigo Osorio To: Erich Dollansky Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing Message-ID: <20131219145915.GB5264@oldfaithful.bebik.local> References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> <20131219135421.63d7cd20@X220.alogt.com> <52B2EECA.10908@marino.st> <20131219214150.4dd55b09@X220.alogt.com> <20131219134641.GA5264@oldfaithful.bebik.local> <20131219220916.0b5fbde5@X220.alogt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131219220916.0b5fbde5@X220.alogt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: David Demelier , "ports@FreeBSD.org" , marino@freebsd.org, freebsd.contact@marino.st X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:06:23 -0000 On 19/12/13 22:09 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100 > Rodrigo Osorio wrote: > > > On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100 > > > John Marino 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? > > > > IMHO, it's the only way to reach quality in the port tree with a very > > accurate traceability. > > you want to say i.e. all the e-mails regarding the switch to KMS > supported X should be PRs just because the writer did not read UPDATING > and the other sources? I think that this can easily handled here > without any PR. > > Erich I don't think ocular problems are in my skills....but... why not, specially if they think there is a real problem with a port. I'm not saying PR is the only, mandatory, way to solve problems. You can talk about a problem in forums,ml, wathever, but if a fix is required it's better to report it as a PR. PR are bette in many ways, with a PR, a problem is - most of the time - assigned to someone so you can complain if nothing is done, in a ML, if nobody cares, there is no problem. obviously, sumarize a problem takes or found a solution takes more time than shoot a "this port doesn't work" email. - rodrigo