From owner-cvs-all  Sat Aug 22 04:23:41 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all>
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA21921
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all)
Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA21916;
          Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca10-63.ix.netcom.com [205.186.214.63]) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA14439; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.8.8/8.6.9) id EAA14209; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199808221122.EAA14209@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
To: ache@nagual.pp.ru
CC: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <19980822064956.A11014@nagual.pp.ru> (ache@nagual.pp.ru)
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/p5-PerlMagick Makefile ports/graphics/p5-PerlMagick/files md5 ports/graphics/p5-PerlMagick/patches patch-aa ports/graphics/p5-PerlMagick/pkg COMMENT DESCR PLIST
From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * > We can't keep it because it is duplicated in ImageMagick.
 * > It was the reason for delete.
 * > If you ever attempt to keep it, you'll got version mismatch in near
 * > future, since both ports overwrite the same files.

I've never argued that.  I'm just saying it's common courtesy for you
to talk to the maintainer first.

 * > If we say A, the we need to say B, instead lots of junk files and version
 * > mismatch occurse. I not say A, I just say B.

I can't parse that at all.

 * In any case we have a possibility to discuss this issue with maintainers
 * _before_ deletion occurse if you explain your point of view as answer on
 * my request instead of simple ignoring it.

My point of view, as I stated over and over before, is that you have
to talk to maintainers before committing controversial changes.

Since you seem to have a rather narrow sense of common courtesy, and
many people have complained in the past, let me state a clear rule for
you.

  You "ache" always have to get the permission of the maintainer
  before you commit to a port maintained by anyone else.  There are to
  be no exceptions.

If you have a dispute with the maintainer, *then* come to me.
Otherwise, please leave it up to the maintainer.

Is that clear enough?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Satoshi