Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 20:05:57 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Matthew Rezny <matthew@reztek.cz> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion Message-ID: <20140524180557.GF2341@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <2827292.qM76QHi0yk@workstation.reztek> References: <2318877.ATaMhzlr5B@desktop.reztek> <1521997.Va510XRLDQ@desktop.reztek> <534AD94A.2030105@marino.st> <2827292.qM76QHi0yk@workstation.reztek>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! Matthew Rezny wrote: [...] > If you don't like it, then don't do it, but don't stand in the way of anyone > else that does. Also, cut the crap. If maintainer is ports@, then what that > literally means is the ports community as a whole is maintaining those ports. > If they are not maintained by anyone, then the maintainer should be NULL. >From my point of view, having a way to express the difference is a valid open issue. There are many open issues, and time is really scarce. > Also, I've done the steps of fix, stage, and claim maintership. The issue is > "honestly be the maintainer". How can I honestly call myself the maintainer > when I can't actually do anything to the port myself. If you want to change things directly in the ports tree, you have to become a ports committer. For this, some committer or two need to be your mentors (I'm still being mentored, so...). All (most?) committers are very busy, that's the general problem. > Sure, there's always disagreements, but part of keeping a functioning > community depends on minimizing disagreement. I'm not saying > staging should be dropped, but making it a requirement for commit > just deters other bugs from getting fixed. "Ooh, I could fix this, > but then I have to stage it too... meh, fuck it." That's seldom the real problem. Finding time to fix anything is the problem, mostly. > that were not handled, or were handled all the way up to the last step and > then forgotten. i.e. ports/188784 @work. Building in poudriere right now. > > you already have the figures (~4700 ports), but here's a dynamic list: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/notstaged.txt It's already down to 3446 right now. > I had kept distance from getting involved in the ports side because it always > looked like a cesspool. After long enough avoiding it, I made the mistake of > stepping in. Knee deep in this shitmess, I have a choice to make. I agree that there was a lot of change in the ports tree recently. But: There is a reason for this: The ports tree has to be cleaner so that it can provide better automatic processes to the users. It's not easy, but it's getting there. Please add civility and patches/PRs to the process, this would help us tremendously. A long rant is sometimes helpful, but if it gets too angry, it alienates others. > I can keep > throwing patches at PRs and hope somebody might just commit them, > or I can say screw it all and just fork the ports tree in a public repo. Provide PRs, send me a Cc: and I can have a look at them. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 6 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140524180557.GF2341>