Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:02:35 +0100 From: Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Aud=E9oud?= <jadawin@FreeBSD.org> To: John Marino <dragonflybsd@marino.st> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rene Ladan <rene@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335281 - in head: . audio audio/gnump3d Message-ID: <20131203090235.GE77731@tuxaco.net> In-Reply-To: <529D94EE.9060609@marino.st> References: <20131202131244.GC71618@tuxaco.net> <529C8C1F.7050802@marino.st> <20131202134921.GD71618@tuxaco.net> <529C91F2.6020004@marino.st> <20131202145224.GH71618@tuxaco.net> <529CA16C.2060000@marino.st> <20131202184749.GC30485@lonesome.com> <20131203015955.GA55963@apnoea.adamw.org> <20131203080830.GA77731@tuxaco.net> <529D94EE.9060609@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013, John Marino wrote: > On 12/3/2013 09:08, Philippe Aud=E9oud wrote: > >=20 > > Adam, > >=20 > > I don't care about "mine" port... I'm just saying that >=20 > Philippe, > You've denied several times that you don't care about your port, but > your actions yesterday clearly state otherwise. It's fine because it > serves as an example. >=20 > > I'm just saying that > > nothing is clear around maintainer and that if maintainer is set, it > > have to be respected.=20 >=20 > THIS! > This is exactly the point. > You've come to understand that the listed maintainer is a complete > monopoly and it is this concept to which we object. I would argue that > maintainer has been respected, but you clearly feel otherwise. >=20 > > I agree that we need to be more reactive to fix a mistake > > but rules don't have to be too permissive regards to maintainer respect. >=20 > Fixing a typo or obvious error is not a sign of disrespect. In most > cases, the maintainer should actually be grateful that the port was > restored quicker than he/she would have done it. >=20 > > Clearly, nothing to see with "People need to un-knot their panties". > > Serioulsy. >=20 > Actually, it was quite appropriate. That's exactly how I see it too. >=20 No comment. > > Now, that everybody gave his opinion about panties, playground and other > > off topic remarks, can we have a *debate* on how we can write or update > > current rules about maintainer and each committer relation, please ? > > Obviously it's a problem encountered by many committer and it have to be > > fixed. Or are we only good to troll ? >=20 > I'm leery about this. On another thread I've seen the first suggestion > and I don't like where it's headed. >=20 > Again, I think portmgr should be proactive about this and not wait for > "suggestions". The problem is clear, this is not new. I consider this > part of the responsibility of the portmgr -- to update policy as needed > and clearly the current policy is not satisfactory. The portmgr is made > up of smart guys, surely they can update policy without a circus of a > debate. >=20 Do you mean that portmgr@ have to do everything alone and can't be help? > > I suggest to work with marino@ and rene@ to help portmgr@ and bapt@ ask= it too. > > So, if you want to be constructive (more than talking about panties, I = mean), > > feel free to send me an email and i will put you in the "workshop". >=20 > I'm happy to "review" any proposed policy change from portmgr and > provide feedback. I really don't want to get into a "debate" though. I > think the issues are pretty well defined, so I trust the solution would > be straightforward. >=20 Yeah, i noticed you don't want to debate. --=20 Philippe Aud=E9oud
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131203090235.GE77731>