Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:04:20 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports disabled for bsdforge Message-ID: <CALH631kBiCN2QsvirXq9EOG=osk0x0bwpuhPBQu0fDNxjzQ7Yg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <202401121400.40CE04P1085845@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> References: <202401111126.40BBQgJ4028906@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <4ae511b8cf4e21ecfa8b4283ea369f6f@bsdforge.com> <202401121400.40CE04P1085845@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:00=E2=80=AFPM Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.o= rg> wrote: > > I thought it was a bit rash of them to do all that so soon (it was obviou= s > that the domain hadn't expired completely, as I could see that you renewe= d > it before it was returned to being "unused".) > > But I didn't realise it was only 6 days! Jeeze, I have many PR's that hav= en't > been looked at it months! There is a misconception that portmgr@ is in charge of going through open unassigned PRs and committing them. But this is actually ports committers' job. At the same time portmgr@ often performs large infrastructure changes that require fixing hundreds and thousands of ports before landing them (no one likes when someone else breaks your port, right?). Each port added to the tree places a maintainership burden not only on an actual maintainer but also on portmgr@. This makes portmgr@ strive to eagerly remove ports that are standing in the way of big changes when their maintainers are lacking time to fix them. Unfortunately this makes portmgr@ look evil in the eyes of not only maintainers but also fellow committers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631kBiCN2QsvirXq9EOG=osk0x0bwpuhPBQu0fDNxjzQ7Yg>