Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:19:05 +0000
From:      RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>
To:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: PR's not being picked up (Was Re: becoming a port committor)
Message-ID:  <20101122131905.318b590c@gumby.homeunix.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101122072257.GF48679@comcast.net>
References:  <4CE7EC0D.9000203@a1poweruser.com> <4CE969B6.90900@kc8onw.net> <AANLkTik7wfhm8hp-Kwfu8HerqYftiYXTCwT6Q83t7Hmv@mail.gmail.com> <201011211909.23708.beech@akherb.com> <20101122052649.GA61979@comcast.net> <4CEA0738.3060701@unfs.us> <20101122072257.GF48679@comcast.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:22:57 -0800
Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun 21 Nov 2010 at 22:01:28 PST Janky Jay, III wrote:
> >
> >    Almost anyone who is an only semi-serious port maintainer
> > (meaning
> >they only have a select few number of ports to maintain and are only
> >trying to contribute/participate) knows that maybe this issue is due
> >to the porter's handbook. Specifically
> >http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-submitting.html
> >which blatantly states that all submissions whether they are new OR
> >updates be submitted in shar format. Maybe the commiters should bring
> >this up and have a few less to deal with..? Just a suggestion.
> 
> That page doesn't say what you think it says.  
> 
> Its context is the creation of a new port.  It doesn't say anything
> about updating an existing port.

Actually it does discuss the wording of the synopsis for both new and
updated ports which gives the impression that that that section covers
both. 

Furthermore  the update chapter is at the opposite end of the
index under the single misleading word  "Upgrading".  There's no mention
of "submitting" which is what people will be looking for. 

IMO chapter 10 should either be 3.7 or be merged into 3.6. If anything
deserves to be under "Quick Porting" it's this.


> Perhaps the problem is that some people never read the *rest* of the
> handbook?  

The trouble is that even when people do read handbooks from beginning
to end there are always sections that that they are likely to skip
until they need them, and this is one of them.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101122131905.318b590c>