From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 20 14:09:48 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 8496960C; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:09:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F6E3177F; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:09:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ld10so2691509pab.39 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:09:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k/K1v70D7NpvJnMGQyiFUOFfQYwb4lj08Px6/4vn1XQ=; b=sFRlaMynEYz40iFXUYKaAz8Wt5DxDVPQtXqn2+vV8dgsEmCeYNSwaLYDdaE1hNrgvi qEy6K5RoyooUF0e2L6KzseeNX6c9dDZOMPka1EzW0SLS60BsX2mp2oSbP9mXQ/0TnpXW VE4NONsTeNGyIcyaw6qBmSpp2gEH+uq40yOqT5JBzHTCvjNZ+IwYMGOQVh4rdzINo1NJ goUP37zsFrT1A17A3Fa1PaWp6WAtSXh+gPiZ39pSEyncJw8Wo4piSWCJQvtFTYOVFtN9 NhyYRZBYYHI+6vAVSXMc70cBx7eau/hY2hqvO9js7TnDchBZyhl6HX2W5g89vjBDIl/L Da7w== X-Received: by 10.66.189.229 with SMTP id gl5mr8791774pac.47.1387548587937; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (ppp59-167-128-11.static.internode.on.net. [59.167.128.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nw11sm19060218pab.13.2013.12.20.06.09.45 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:09:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52B44FA1.6050001@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 01:09:37 +1100 From: Kubilay Kocak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/27.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marino@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> <52B44926.6000005@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <52B44926.6000005@marino.st> 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: koobs@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 14:09:48 -0000 On 21/12/2013 12:41 AM, John Marino wrote: > 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 > I appreciate the distinction, and I agree with your premises. Setting a high standard is not in question. If your aim however, is to change or influence others, and you'll grant that not everyone can know all there is to know about the values and behaviours we espouse in advance, then a reply guiding (read: leading) those individuals in the right direction would likely prove more effective than what was perhaps just a symptom of frustration. If you don't feel up to taking on that role, then maybe unsubscribing is the way to go, though I hope its not as you have a lot of value to add. koobs