From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 20 12:54:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-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 451A9BE3 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:54:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sender1.zohomail.com (sender1.zohomail.com [72.5.230.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285E411B3 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:54:21 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=zapps768; d=zoho.com; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version; b=hGskwwms4hwk2DzfXutwTjcgVLtmU/ulbBOis92KaAmUSrTTP5C6Yp3mXMr4Gs/9QXLvR5Q9/krm +Ofbq1o5g5MmZ0kxfmAgZdcucect9DWFxpN+BTJ5a1KdjRmGOUfS Received: from [192.168.11.5] (213.111.120.236 [213.111.120.236]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1387544060775486.18645030888285; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 04:54:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing From: clutton To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20131219181343.GB47750@glaze.hydra> References: <307860.67121.bm@smtp112.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <201312190944.rBJ9isTx024731@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20131219181343.GB47750@glaze.hydra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:54:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1387544051.8658.68.camel@eva02.mbsd> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMail: Ss SS_10 UW UB UW UB SGR3_1_26113_60 X-ZohoMail-Owner: <1387544051.8658.68.camel@eva02.mbsd>+zmo_0_ X-ZohoMail-Sender: 213.111.120.236 X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 2 X-ZohoMailClient: External 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: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:54:22 -0000 On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 11:13 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > > > > > >From: "Thomas Mueller" > > > > > >There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or > > >what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly. > >=20 > > I disagree. > > I use only send-pr to send PRs. > > I use sendmail. >=20 > I disagree with you. For new users, send-pr is a fucking usability > train wreck, and insufficiently well documented. Sendmail is legendary > for its obtuse configuration. I suppose you should be proud of the fact > you find these tools easy to use, but that does not mean you should > dismiss others' concerns over how difficult some people find them. The > fact many people find these tools very difficult to use is in fact kind > of a big problem, and I'm glad something is being done about it with > regard to the bugzilla system. I wouldn't have chosen bugzilla if it > was up to me, but it's not up to me and it's sure to be a huge > improvement over the system currently in place, so I'm grateful for the > work being done. Hopefully the command line send-pr tool will also be > replaced with something that actually provides a low-friction way for > people with problem reports to contribute to the FreeBSD project. >=20 > In conclusion, I agree with Thomas (though I much prefer fdm over mpop, > personally), and believe that send-pr (or its replacement, whenever that > happens) desperately needs some better documentation. I rather suspect > that a lot of people with problems to report simply give up and leave us > with no clue there's anything wrong. >=20 +1 People wouldn't read the =C2=ABPorters Handbook=C2=BB because they want to = make a bug report. Category and Class are far away from obvious. Handbook said that the FreeBSD consists from src, ports, and docs. The send-pr Category dropbox contains ports, bin, java, ia64, etc. It's insane to put everything here.