Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 00:46:02 +0100 From: Daniel Engberg <diizzy@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org>, "Dan Mahoney (Ports)" <freebsd@gushi.org>, Freebsd Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Regarding port(s) you maintain in FreeBSD ports collection Message-ID: <5f2e07094306d7ae8dc1c98e95ee2d24@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8BD6CB40-7E3E-4CFD-B184-CE641675A611@grem.de> References: <20211107224029.GB45416@eureka.lemis.com> <8BD6CB40-7E3E-4CFD-B184-CE641675A611@grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2021-11-07 23:53, Michael Gmelin wrote: >> On 7. Nov 2021, at 23:40, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org> >> wrote: >> >> On Sunday, 7 November 2021 at 20:27:01 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote: >>>> On 7. Nov 2021, at 20:06, Dan Mahoney (Ports) <freebsd@gushi.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 7, 2021, at 7:04 AM, Daniel Engberg <diizzy@FreeBSD.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> You're receiving this mail because you have one or more ports that >>>>>> are affected by the change proposed in >>>>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D32880 ... >>>> >>>> This caused me some headscratching (wait, is my port here but not >>>> in the list? Am I mailed because a port here is a dependency of my >>>> port?) >>> >>>> I???ve concluded that instead I???m receiving this mail because you >>>> sent it to the entire ports mailing list. Am I wrong? >>> >>> At least one of the affected ports is maintained by ports@ >>> (=unmaintained). >> >> That makes it rather pointless to say "because you have one or more >> ports". Now *everybody* has to go through the list to find whether >> they're affected or not. > > Not really, as I assume everyone maintaining these ports received a > separate email addressed to the address used in the MAINTAINER field. > That’s consistent with other emails received on ports@ (like update > notices from portscout). > >> It would have been better to exclude ports@ >> from the list. > > Or change the wording for that specific email, I was also slightly > confused and checked the list of affected ports, just to make sure - > also as a consumer of ports. > >> But what I see is that really only ports@ was on the >> To: list. >> > > Which makes sense, as those emails were sent to maintainers (one email > per maintainer). Again, that’s consistent with other communication to > ports@, even though in this case, some specific wording would’ve > helped. > > Just to be clear, I only explained what happened there, I didn’t send > those emails or was involved in any way. > > -m Hi, I apologize for the confusion, I tried to catch "everyone" and I've (b)cc all maintainers that do no have a Phabricator account but since a lot of ports are old and unassigned to I figured that I should also notify ports@ too to avoid people missing it. Best regards, Daniel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f2e07094306d7ae8dc1c98e95ee2d24>