From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 19:40:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68F1544C for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55AEBB03 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s46Je00J091854 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:40:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s46Je0Jh091853; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:40:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 19:40:00 GMT Message-Id: <201405061940.s46Je0Jh091853@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Mark Linimon Subject: Re: ports/188127: net/wackamole : deprecate Reply-To: Mark Linimon X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 19:40:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/188127; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mark Linimon To: C Hutchinson Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/188127: net/wackamole : deprecate Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:33:09 -0500 On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:50:01PM +0000, C Hutchinson wrote: > > GNATS doesn't really have a concept of "port". That makes it easy for > > committers to overlook a particular PR. > > Indeed. IMHO that seems like overhead the already over-burdened committers > could do without. I mean no offense. I'm just thinking; there must be a > better way, for all concerned. :) > > I'll try to set aside some time, and see if I can conceive a more > efficient solution, and make a POC (proof of concept) for review. There is already a prototype to replace GNATS. You're somewhat late to this particular party, I'm afraid :-) mcl