From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 20 13:42:36 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 7425BE52; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:42:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A42215E1; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:42:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (ip70-178-7-237.ks.ks.cox.net [70.178.7.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEDB5435A3; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:42:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <52B44926.6000005@marino.st> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:41:58 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing References: <201312201132.rBKBWEQT089240@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <52B44361.500@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <52B44361.500@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mexas@bris.ac.uk, code@apotheon.net, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kubilay Kocak X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:42:36 -0000 On 12/20/2013 14:17, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > I don't know about the rest of you, but I am that user too. A > @FreeBSD.org email, commit bit and still a "new" user that doubts myself > sometimes and looks to the team for the right thing to do. > > If not for the encouragement of those in the project who grok what > motivates and demotivates people, I wouldn't be doing what I do today. > > This thread is a real shame, mired in technical minutia as if that's > what really matters. > > I am here to enable and be a steward for users like Anton, and your > contributions are valued. So thank you for sharing. This sentiment described above is fine, but "the thread" was never focused on cases like this. The very narrow focus is on when the user is saavy enough to recognize that the problem is not him, and that the problem deserves a report. Rather than submit a PR however, the user just sends it to ports@. That is not the case you are talking about -- in your scenario, the user is going to provide context and express his confusion or doubt. That is a far cry from sending exclusively a build log. So the "real shame" is that topic is getting expanding to include all user interaction which was never the intent. btw, accepting PRs at ports@ because we the maintainers are not processing GNATS PRs better is treating the symptom of a bigger issue. Yes, GNATS is antiquated, and letting the user specified the classification is beyond boneheaded (as is never fixing that issue). However, a lot of the PR processing issues is centered on inadequate policies and frankly a coddling of delinquent maintainers (I'd like to see it a lot easier to loss commit privileges). But this is an entirely different topic, one that portmgr has to stop avoiding and start addressing. In fact, there are a lot of areas of policy that need updating (for years now) that are flat-out being neglected. But the PR system as it exists today is still the official process so we should try to make it work. John