From nobody Fri Jan 12 15:04:20 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TBPwC4LMdz570LM for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:04:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 6yearold@gmail.com) Received: from mail-oo1-f52.google.com (mail-oo1-f52.google.com [209.85.161.52]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TBPwC2fxrz4HLH for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:04:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 6yearold@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-oo1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-598cad07133so292744eaf.3 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705071898; x=1705676698; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=klw1S61I6LQVy7SK3Az7ssPu9EGqAD+/U8klYZ0SBB4=; b=uGAaFKpSZCcwvTIG8DvtKT2l1bC+KxLw2aUkblZ6a7vCjzotLfrtp2PM9IGxPpNKPL adXyRFVZkLRaVLGwbQKPp/9ZnXA8hCwRR0lQ9WW9PLZUtvoGFHiTjIv1PH2KvRHAR7XO 6kEdirZczfvJ/aKJeh2lbZxQFkkdH/cNXZvPlWU7QRgKzhacTzcjfptRBTk0cmXW44Dk TOlvyUQPyZdfAtXPrZwvolaXF8e1J6G+gsxirs14aXrJjYdEh79zlxXJPXhCozbE5RZZ 8aKSGd5ZrYK1UxWk4QbMrLtsbGTv4714XyrK0MySAHqy97XtaWvCoh2PjsqORnoR163j E6aA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzEo6kjb+0OeJcY6cwoeBQSfUyFYcul+k70iFyHRMWiflBvMPxt 54vFUOKRvCg/geBVSBhGQLbs1WCMlIkIsw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHbgxsV7KoGtrnUozQaYvKXDOlBp5ujqDuw+2C+mOZINh0z/RLVTMHmaoTZMU2qwApHzC3fkQ== X-Received: by 2002:a4a:5143:0:b0:591:a87c:cbb2 with SMTP id s64-20020a4a5143000000b00591a87ccbb2mr753437ooa.5.1705071897940; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi1-f170.google.com (mail-oi1-f170.google.com. [209.85.167.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u128-20020a4a5786000000b0059870bf6492sm726196ooa.21.2024.01.12.07.04.57 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-f170.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3bd6581bca0so179372b6e.0 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6359:7393:b0:175:a7e5:361d with SMTP id uz19-20020a056359739300b00175a7e5361dmr1281404rwb.36.1705071897481; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:04:57 -0800 (PST) List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202401111126.40BBQgJ4028906@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <4ae511b8cf4e21ecfa8b4283ea369f6f@bsdforge.com> <202401121400.40CE04P1085845@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> In-Reply-To: <202401121400.40CE04P1085845@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> From: Gleb Popov Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:04:20 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports disabled for bsdforge To: Jamie Landeg-Jones Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TBPwC2fxrz4HLH X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US] On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:00=E2=80=AFPM Jamie Landeg-Jones 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.