From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 6 19:50:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5FAD9C0 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:50:01 +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 A0355BCF for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:50:01 +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 s46Jo0v3095098 for ; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:50:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s46Jo0of095083; Tue, 6 May 2014 19:50:00 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 19:50:00 GMT Message-Id: <201405061950.s46Jo0of095083@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "C Hutchinson" Subject: Re: ports/188127: net/wackamole : deprecate Reply-To: "C Hutchinson" 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 19:50:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/188127; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "C Hutchinson" To: "Mark Linimon" Cc: "C Hutchinson" , bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/188127: net/wackamole : deprecate Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 12:48:25 -0700 (PDT) > 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 :-) Good news, I'm sure. In all honesty, I'm a bit relieved. My ToDo plate already runeth over. :) But this sort of thing is my weakness -- as in; I'm fairly inclined in this area. So I felt strongly compelled to at least try to find a [better] solution. Thank you for taking the time to enlighten me. --Chris > > mcl >