Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:37:35 +0100 From: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> To: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r346114 - head/devel/p4.el Message-ID: <20140310153735.02ab9ef59f78f95bb54104c2@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140310141659.GG11135@gahrfit.gahr.ch> References: <201402260657.s1Q6vEsH059562@svn.freebsd.org> <BEE32AF42CDC7ED09B7234F0@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20140226123420.f5c0d0ff40b404a70334da4b@FreeBSD.org> <20140310072423.GC11693@FreeBSD.org> <f8e85ff21f349babc099b00d8207a8b2@apnoea.adamw.org> <3D82157DD87FC9C0C7724278@ogg.in.absolight.net> <20140310141659.GG11135@gahrfit.gahr.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 2014-Mar-10, 14:38, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > +--On 10 mars 2014 08:32:52 -0400 Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> > > wrote: > > | On 2014/03/10 03:24, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > |> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:34:20PM +0100, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > |>> Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > |>> > Taking one amongst many, the current practice is to mute the > > |>> > MKDIR and not mute commands that install files. Would you > > |>> > mind respecting that in the future ? > > |> > > |>> This is just a matter of opinion. I've always preferred to see > > |>> what is being installed or what direcories are being created. > > |>> Even the example in the PHB doesn't mute the mkdir. Unless this > > |>> gets correcte in the PHB > > |>> I won't change this. > > | > > | Alexey - > > | > > | You make this request every few days, it seems, and the response > > | is always the same: it's not in the PHB. > > | > > | You should put it there. It SHOULD be policy. We should strive for > > | consistency across ports. The ports tree should present a unified > > | experience for all ports, for all users. > > > > Yes, sorry, it's not in the PHB yet, I'm at section 6.7 at the > > momment, and I'm updating things as I go. > > > > (And yes, if you're applying old policies from chapters 1 to 5, you > > should go and have a look, things may have changed.) > > ports-policy-change-announce@ comes to mind :) Has anybody else ever > felt the desire to get notified whenever a policy is updated? Just to > avoid having to skim through commit logs. I am not sure if another ml will solve the problem but I do agree that there needs to be better communication about new policies. New features and policies should be properly anounced or at the minimum documented in the PHB. Take the new options helpers for instance. See x11/xterm for instance (hands up, how many people did not know they existed?). It is hard enough for committers to follow all the changes I image it's much harder for our many contributors. Last but not least I think it would be great if we could stop debating over NOOP changes and focus on functional changes/fixes. Emanuel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140310153735.02ab9ef59f78f95bb54104c2>