Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:37:25 -0700 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r358722 - head/Mk Message-ID: <CAF6rxgnEficrO3dxagefxDCF8rTnByZosDGtJwdxdzmEJiLHaw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140623124533.GP23976@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <201406211708.s5LH8ZvE087036@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgkeu0BG5pzN1rJ=u=5VnNgmVuN2PWbay13RY7qMt7JCmA@mail.gmail.com> <20140623124533.GP23976@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 June 2014 05:45, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:17:19AM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: >> On 21 June 2014 10:08, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > Author: mat >> > Date: Sat Jun 21 17:08:34 2014 >> > New Revision: 358722 >> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/358722 >> > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r358722/ >> > >> > Log: >> > Add a small notice about maintainership of this file. >> > >> > With hat: portmgr >> > Sponsored by: Absolight >> > >> > Modified: >> > head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk >> > >> > Modified: head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk >> > ============================================================================== >> > --- head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk Sat Jun 21 17:03:33 2014 (r358721) >> > +++ head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk Sat Jun 21 17:08:34 2014 (r358722) >> > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ >> > # - OPTION_DESC?= must be 19 characters or less >> > # - OPTION description text must be 43 characters or less >> > # >> > +# - This file's MAINTAINER is ports@FreeBSD.org so that entries can be added to >> > +# it easily. Any sweeping changes should be approved by portmgr. >> >> IMHO this is silly. The risk of changing description text is almost >> zero. Sweeping changes should be reviewed, but I don't think gating >> the review on a member of portmgr is useful. >> > Given what happened recently on those yes portmgr needs to review those sweep I'll copy what I wrote on phabricator: If anything, the recent commits proved that this statement is exactly opposite of what it should be. People add entries too easily, not realizing that this file is just a default. This means that new entries are often too general or useless. Also, people are too discouraged to change the descriptions when they are useless. -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnEficrO3dxagefxDCF8rTnByZosDGtJwdxdzmEJiLHaw>