Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 23:15:10 -0400 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> 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 Message-ID: <20110707031510.GC7489@magic.hamla.org> In-Reply-To: <20110706072945.GB51480@FreeBSD.org> References: <201107040755.p647tS0b082384@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110704162342.GD5630@magic.hamla.org> <4E122F0C.4080000@FreeBSD.org> <20110705022932.GD6224@magic.hamla.org> <20110706072945.GB51480@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 07:29:45 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > 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. Ah, ok. > 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? :-( I would say it's harmful! :) -- Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110707031510.GC7489>