From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 6 21:45:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 813A6106566B for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 21:45:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from raven.customer.vol.cz (raven.customer.vol.cz [195.250.144.108]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39678FC16 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 21:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.23] (ip-62-245-117-217.net.upcbroadband.cz [62.245.117.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by raven.customer.vol.cz (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p16Ljjef032197; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 22:45:47 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) From: Pav Lucistnik To: Gerald Pfeifer In-Reply-To: References: <201101152257.p0FMvSTR058827@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110128212637.GB4687@lonesome.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-FvKnSjs7sU8Hm3cp0PPM" Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:45:44 +0100 Message-ID: <1297028744.16814.33.camel@hood.oook.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 195.250.144.108 X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: raven.customer.vol.cz; Sender-ip: 62.245.117.217; Sender-helo: [192.168.0.23]; ) Cc: Mark Linimon , cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/metapixel Makefile distinfo X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pav@FreeBSD.org List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:45:53 -0000 --=-FvKnSjs7sU8Hm3cp0PPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gerald Pfeifer p=ED=B9e v ne 06. 02. 2011 v 03:26 +0100: > 1 An infrastructure change is submitted. > 2. portmgr (or other maintainers) review. > 3. If the review is positive, a pointyhat run is kicked off and for > every new failure > - if the port is maintained, a PR is opened and assigned to the > port maintainer; > - if the port is unmaintained, it is marked BROKEN and DEPRECATED > with a deprecation period of two months. > 4. Unless testing has uncovered a real issue with the infrastructure > change, it is committed after two months at the latest. This would just mean that the change would stall for two months and then the whole bullet 3 would have to be repeated. These changes need a focused, concentrated *short-time* effort to get right. You can try to engage various maintainers but they're hardly ever cooperative. In the big picture it's always more effective to do the changes yourself than to micro-manage lot of uninvolved people. IMHO. Also I don't agree that uncooperating ports should be mass-removed, because of, in the end, a stylistic change. We can debate the removals on individual basis. Obsolete, upstream unmaintained, low-profile ports can go, but nothing else. Again IMHO. --=20 --=20 Pav Lucistnik /usr/src scares me. I'm just not man enough to commit there. --=-FvKnSjs7sU8Hm3cp0PPM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk1PFogACgkQntdYP8FOsoLXDACcCrDehP+ooAjvZJ6fqg4DjBgb 07cAnAzLVmzwZXeu9bXTLuENNQyxq7/6 =S70d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-FvKnSjs7sU8Hm3cp0PPM--