Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:25:13 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193431] [MAINTAINER] lang/smlnj: update to 110.77 Message-ID: <bug-193431-13-XQG9rlLeMZ@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-193431-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-193431-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193431 Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Needs Triage |Patch Ready --- Comment #3 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> --- A couple of points: poudriere no longer requires ZFS (See NO_ZFS=yes) so go ahead and give it a go :) While run-time / functional testing is great, ports/package QA is of the utmost importance. poudriere and redports provide cleanroom build environments, which pick up issues that local testing tends not to. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly for you and other contributors, complete and thorough QA gets you: - To the "patch ready queue" quicker and ahead of other issues - A reputation for high-quality issue reports - A higher priority (if not now, then very shortly in the future to reflect the quality of an issue report) As far as the portlint warnings go, the non-standard options structure does raise red flags, but ultimately portlint is a tool, and doesn't need to be blindly followed. If the warnings can be fixed, then go ahead. If they cant (for reasons you can put up a strong case for), then not a problem. Good judgment matters and ideally both portlint and the quality of our ports gets better over time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-193431-13-XQG9rlLeMZ>