From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 21 13:06:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: 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 90F3DCC4; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:06:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from spectrum.skysmurf.nl (spectrum.skysmurf.nl [82.95.125.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23F4141E; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:06:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from spectrum.skysmurf.nl ([192.168.42.3]) by spectrum.skysmurf.nl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id rBLD62pi048775; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:06:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@skysmurf.nl) Received: by spectrum.skysmurf.nl (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:06:02 +0100 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:06:02 +0100 From: "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven" To: marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing Message-ID: <20131221130602.GA48590@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> X-PGP-Key: http://www.skysmurf.nl/~fonz/fonz_pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:06:12 -0000 --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John Marino wrote: > Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and > mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to > discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage > this method of bypassing writing PRs. One user even proudly boasted > that sending email to ports@ is faster than writing a PR so of course he > was going to do that instead. For what it's worth: the article "Writing FreeBSD Problem Reports" (see http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/article= =2Ehtml ) actually encourages people to try mailing lists before submitting a PR. To quote section 3 "Preparations": "The mailing lists-if you are not subscribed, use the searchable archives on the FreeBSD web site. If your problem has not been discussed on the lists, you might try posting a message about it and waiting a few days to see if someone can spot something you have overlooked." Please note that I'm not voicing an opinion one way or the other, it's just something I noticed and that I thought could be relevant. AvW --=20 I'm not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example. --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJStZI6AAoJEAfP7gJTaCe8qoYQAJUbKM4CbJt00cQuo7AmJvW1 ihWlSOvXMQ4S4lTi4iCqbbr1iwa6EadlYE5q3HLpuDAEbr3hIh48U7wRgYPKkVhO xZnBGtf0o2Fbj4Wcu9c+10WLg5+iRWrVGqdv0N07Vv4g+2ShEQ+McxaVr1Memafb fxysxdbobQLa/40l7nigpaTitMTfwHwfoZr793hjaAk/c+O+J/62pFYVEW1XzzN6 VJHmDWo1j6qkVXQyKGf/MpoJcv585Q93EIkthFmj2nFHXEss2O0ACVYzm0ffQ1PO G1NOj+StR3aYpddVt7UWhXRZIU4yc/+GjLGwBTWQGNlygL7HDnU13g24ChqvthxN gIoi1Ug456pvYSdBo1PMjtH6RLozUtZ7wSB9tJmf5x7wwygxcasvvuIy6M7POWe2 tePjwDM7k4GVwCfcpSnhhIw31QJtRWdMS1xr2iaJS3qETExuEPL2nRF+SwwESsZ0 GCQtKkjXl/Wyxg5zdIp8xKyXnRjIK52Ka4Jhp330B/9vmeu4N0rwjF9mBeaoWn4z 205tgK6XB0OrT9jphzXtInkIInt8Cy6Ms9o26gwyt1CpZjEKxKqfgBwbDLzkSX/n Mvq9+8yBuKdZ5TrcCMtM96iR1lIt8tjR+1APCTOZ45SefEk/GWOftBHznGKP/2nI V2AUhdu8V+iIHCvbRgFL =OvMJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--