Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:34:55 -0500 From: "Christofer C. Bell" <christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Cc: Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com>, Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de> Subject: Re: FreeBSD asking contributors to fix their opinions - is it official? Message-ID: <CAOEVnYsFqN3G5Qc%2BHcmHRtKo9DXcY9o8EpYZCs1cJiTLJwpuSw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200321141203.GC5911@schmorp.de> References: <20200321122609.GB5709@schmorp.de> <CAEJNuHw1NnLxVGmZPzz0r8gopscAPn=oj1WJWVCFqYLhpQraoA@mail.gmail.com> <20200321141203.GC5911@schmorp.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 9:13 AM Marc Lehmann <schmorp@schmorp.de> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 01:50:09PM +0000, Ottavio Caruso < > ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I'm not affiliated to FreeBSD, but I see nothing wrong in a developer > > from another project posting onto a public mailing list of another > > project and voicing his concerns about a particular issue > > Me neither - I am merely concerned that the particular issue is an > unspecified _personal opinion_. I see a lot of wrong in going around and > asking people to remove personal opinion in the name of a big Project. > > This together with the fact that this ports page: > > https://www.freshports.org/devel/p5-Canary-Stability/ > > is not only full of personal opinion but, much worse, also of made-up > false claims should give you an idea of where we would be heading if we > tried to police all that. > > > same time I think you are taking it a bit too personal. I've read [1] > > and I see nothing that induces to thinking he was speaking on behalf > > of the whole of FreeBSD. > > Well, he has since pretty much clarified that he does and that the project > is fine with that, so my reading seemed to have been spot on. > For what it's worth, I checked out https://metacpan.org/changes/distribution/Canary-Stability as cited on https://www.freshports.org/devel/p5-Canary-Stability/ figuring I'd see some personal opinions. I found a lot of them. I strongly agree with the adamw@freebsd.org that they don't belong in the port. (Some of the extraneous "opinions" are citations of fact meant to call attention to your concern about some issue that isn't germane to the port itself -- I'm referring to these, as well). It doesn't really pass the smell test when you claim to not know what he's talking about. Revision history for Perl extension Canary::Stability 2013 Mon Apr 22 12:38:45 CEST 2019 - carbon-dioxide levels hit 400ppm first time in recorded history. - during AUTOMATED_TESTING, turn minimum version recommendations into hard requirements to avoid false positives in unsupported perl versions. - added dummy testsuite. 2012 Sun Sep 25 01:45:56 CEST 2016 - another year where the UNFCCC had to adjust their predictions in the worse direction. - do not print the big intro blob in yellow. 2011 Sun Mar 13 04:41:48 CET 2016 - the year the terrorists won and the free world sacrificed the free. - added more explanatory blurb, based on ideas by Kent Fredric. - colour wasn't reset in time to catch further Makefile.PL output in some cases. 2006 Tue Jan 31 01:00:00 UTC 2006 - the year when things were in good shape still. - the compatibility version test for 5.22 was wrong and errornously takes 5.20.1+ as unsupported. - fix urls. 2001 Tue Jul 3 02:18:41 CEST 2001 - the year where perl was still accomodating enough to inspire module authors to do cool stuff, as opposed to abusing policy to stifle criticism. 1996 Wed Jun 5 09:34:41 GFT 1996 - ariane 5 destructed due to a software compatibility problem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOEVnYsFqN3G5Qc%2BHcmHRtKo9DXcY9o8EpYZCs1cJiTLJwpuSw>