From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul  6 07:29:45 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 3884E106567E; Wed,  6 Jul 2011 07:29:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:29:45 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20110706072945.GB51480@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201107040755.p647tS0b082384@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20110704162342.GD5630@magic.hamla.org>
	<4E122F0C.4080000@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110705022932.GD6224@magic.hamla.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110705022932.GD6224@magic.hamla.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/libotr Makefile
	ports/security/pidgin-otr Makefile
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:29:45 -0000

On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 10:29:33PM -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Is there an example of when either of these ports was bumped
> inappropriately?  We should not be bumping PORTREVISION without good
> reason across *all* ports, so I want to understand why these two
> particular ports that you maintain are being singled out with explicit
> comments.

I believe that Doug is trying to address very common problem these days when
careless committers bump port revisions without giving sufficient thinking
of whether it is really required.  While you are absolutely right in that we
should not be bumping PORTREVISION without good reason across *all* ports,
in reality, not every one is willing to invest some of their time to think
about if PORTREVISION bump is due every time they commit to a port.

Also, many low quality PRs are being automatically committed with only
minimal sanity check like tinderbox run.  PORTREVISION is harmless and
cheap, so why bother?  :-(

./danfe