Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 16:49:44 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193453] [STAGE] ports-mgmt/prhistory: Enable STAGE support, Take Maintainership Message-ID: <bug-193453-13-fR5SOS1Z4M@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-193453-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-193453-13@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=193453 --- Comment #8 from C Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- (In reply to John Marino from comment #7) > (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #6) > > Well, yes. Sure. I understand (some|many) may feel it's [shall we say] > > less-than-desirable. But I think it can be improved, and yes, I think > > the time to do it, is worth it. :) > > I don't know that bugzilla is necessarily the best-thing-since-sliced-bread, > > either. They both have their pluses, and minuses. Kinda' like the argument > > over SVN-v-CVS | FreeBSD-v-Linux -- depends upon who you're talking to. > > No? :) > > I actually don't think those are comparable. > GNATS has a bunch of fundamental issues due to when it was designed. And > some of those design issues can't be blamed on "back then everything was on > one system and we all trusted each other". For example, the decision to let > the submitter decide the criticality level of their own PR is asinine. > Everything thinks their little problem is the near the end of the world and > that everyone cares (ofc, the rest of us think it's trivial at best). > > I honestly don't think anybody (except maybe you) would start a new GNATS > system. Not with the current design, and not with improvements added. You > could literally be only consumer of gnats4 with a possible exception of > somebody that wants to archive the FreeBSD database (not to use, but only > for archival purposes). > > > > As to better being a "new port". I guess I don't have a real issue with > > that. It just seemed trivial to make it generic enough to work with [any] > > gnats4. So I thought it worth keeping it in the tree. With the intention > > of making it use _any_ gnats4 bug||database. In the _very_ near future. > > While also adding support for the [current] (bugzilla) pr(1), used now. > > I don't see why somebody that wanted bugzilla wouldn't just open a browser. > These PRs must be nearly unreadable in a straight text form. > > > > In the end. I'll let you decide. My life won't come to an end, which ever > > choice you make. ;) I can re-introduce it, if need be. > > I vote to let this port die. > If you do succeed in modifying the source to make it generic and you find > out that there's a demand for it (other than yourself) then we can bring it > back pretty easily. I don't want to bring it back on a promise that it will > be fixed later. Fix it first, that's my feeling. Sure. OK. If I've learned anything, through all this. I've learned _not_ to argue with you. ;) Seriously. You bring up very good points. I have more work to do, on both gnats4, and prhistory. I see no [real] reason to _insist_ this be kept in the tree, _today_. When I can easily add it, when it's [actually] completed, _as_ intended. Thanks for all the time, and input, you've put into this, John. I _really_ appreciate it. :) --Chris -- 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-193453-13-fR5SOS1Z4M>