From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 4 11:27:10 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 928D7F6E; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:27:10 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Andrej Zverev Subject: Re: svn commit: r344316 - in head/net-mgmt: . p5-Nagios-Plugin-Beanstalk p5-Nagios-Plugin-Beanstalk/files Message-ID: <20140304112710.GA63353@FreeBSD.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" , Steve Wills , "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" , "ports-committers@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:27:10 -0000 On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:04:39AM +0400, Andrej Zverev wrote: > > Submitted by: Andrew Thompson > > +MAINTAINER= perl@FreeBSD.org > > I know this is old rule, but we don't like such practice (and i think > we still) when maintainer != submitter for a new port. I recall the rule was about that newly added ports should not be maintained by ports@. Meta-entities like x11@, perl@, python@, etc. make sense, and I don't see a problem here (if a port in question is ineeded of such a broad interest and/or importance). ./danfe