From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 29 21:10:12 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5019816A41F; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:10:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA8643D45; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:10:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 6FCB729EF; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:10:11 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:10:11 -0500 To: Pav Lucistnik Message-ID: <20050729211011.GE19476@soaustin.net> References: <20050727230523.GB54954@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050728154248.GA943@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20050728164111.GA66015@isis.sigpipe.cz> <42E917BA.10406@exit.com> <790a9fff050728142793c7588@mail.gmail.com> <47ECFCB8BE498CEAB57757D7@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <1122588979.97751.1.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <1122634769.42ea0c11751e8@buexe.b-5.de> <1122635572.66245.26.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1122635572.66245.26.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Paul Schmehl , Lupe Christoph Subject: Re: New port with maintainer ports@FreeBSD.org [was: Question about maintainers] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:10:12 -0000 On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 01:12:52PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > I see such PRs as useful. At least the save effort for people having > > the same problem, pointing them to a known deficiency. And they *might* > > still get fixed. > > In theory, yes. > > In practice, majority of them never see a single followup and all they > serve for is to keep GNATS numbers high. While I think I can claim to have done as much work as most people on trying to get the GNATS numbers down, I don't think we should close PRs that are pointing out still-existing problems just because they're old just to get the numbers down. That's what, IMHO, the "suspended" state is for, if you look at the documentation ("problem is known but no one is working on this.") > We should have a gang of people scouring GNATS, reproducing problems and > obtaining more details from submitters and maintainers. We don't have > such people now. We do have certain dedicated people that do exactly that, and they rarely get thanked (thank you folks, you know who you are!) But certainly we could always use more. > Whole another deal is if we should be fixing flaws in the software > itself, or even adding new features. Nope. The Ports Collection should be a framework for installing someone's else's software on FreeBSD. PRs about new features, or bugs in the softwanre itself, need to be closed and the submitter referred to the author(s). IIRC the PR Submission Guidelines state this. PRs should be about something not working _on FreeBSD specifically_. mcl