From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug 15 01:29:10 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 329501065673; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:29:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:29:10 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20110815012910.GA62001@FreeBSD.org>
References: <CADLo839VotWbi209+eR3LAuQ4HqC-LSGY4avcUFXHat=HjsrKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110812093328.GE85247@hades.panopticon>
	<b0535f6d53bb546b54d85797ec66cf0b@etoilebsd.net>
	<20110812101133.GF85247@hades.panopticon>
	<4E4584EA.7090306@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110813133717.GA38385@hades.panopticon>
	<4E469837.1030903@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110813172040.GC38385@hades.panopticon>
	<20110814030033.GA80255@FreeBSD.org> <4E47EF20.8000409@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E47EF20.8000409@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.ORG>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, ports-committers@FreeBSD.ORG,
	Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/cad/admesh 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: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:29:10 -0000

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 14.08.2011 05:00, schrieb Alexey Dokuchaev:
> > Big +1 for Dmitry here; ports@ is perfectly fine maintainer entity, much
> > easier to work with, and often receives more and better care than many of
> > seemingly "properly" maintained ports.
> 
> Assuming that were true, how else do we make sure not to let rotten code
> linger in the ports tree?

I believe current measures work fine: check distfile availability, routinely
run the port on tinderbox.  What we are doing right now is enough; no need
to make "maintained by ports@" mean anything particularly bad or unsafe.
Real maintainers sometimes are just as bad when it comes to security and
build fixes.

Personally, I think of ports@ as being "maintained by Ports Fury, but they
do not mind if I touch it sometimes".

./danfe