Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:17:20 +0200 From: Markiyan Kushnir <markiyan.kushnir@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Philippe_Aud=E9oud?= <jadawin@freebsd.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing Message-ID: <CACvtUJdQL1N59Nn12MBu6NHiQAK3r_%2BBq0RArs99iNK4iOjweA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20131218064459.GA5354@tuxaco.net> References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> <20131218064459.GA5354@tuxaco.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It sounds like a need for a more grained structure of the ports-related communication, just because the community is growing. Very often there is a need to discuss one's issue in a list prior to filing a PR. And yes, *discuss*, I agree with John, people should show they want to discuss their failed builds, whatever. I think automated failure reports (ports-qat) would easily be assigned to a separate list. I would suggest at least the following divisions: ports-questions@ would be for things like howtos, problems with managing ports, upgrading, versioning, etc. ports-devel@ for all sorts of ports build/install issues (port maintainers would be the primary responders), and ports-auto@ for automated repots like QAT. And the current ports@ would be aliased to ports-questions@. -- Markiyan. 2013/12/18 Philippe Aud=E9oud <jadawin@freebsd.org>: > On mar, 17 d=E9c 2013, 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. >> >> If this kind of post is acceptable to the rest of the people here, and >> I'm alone in not only finding it very rude, but also making the volume >> of ports@ too high, then please tell me that the problem is with me. >> >> If nothing is going to change, I am going to unsubscribe from ports@ >> list. The gcc developers on gcc@gcc.gnu.org always tell a poster when a >> post in appropriate for that list and as a result and as a result the >> posters usually only make a mistake once. I'd like to see something >> closer to that, but if the list isn't going to be policed then it's too >> noisy for me. >> >> John > > Hello, > > They don't start their mail wihtout saying "hello"... like you. People > are not polite and we won't change it. > > I agree with you that users don't have to use ports@ instead of GNATS > but the fact is that we are slow on GNATS: we still have untouched PR > since beginning 2013 (because i closed 2006, 2011 and 2012). > If we want to change that we have to explain how to use PR (or simply rem= ind > it to users) and to be reactive on GNATS. In my opinon; guilty people > are not users but us. Users find a quicker way and they use it. > > Regards, > > -- > Philippe Aud=E9oud > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACvtUJdQL1N59Nn12MBu6NHiQAK3r_%2BBq0RArs99iNK4iOjweA>