Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:20:33 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: nivo@is-root.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to construct this port? Message-ID: <45941901.7050503@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20061228203313.0752d58e@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <4593AB3D.5090107@is-root.com> <20061228122828.GA8473@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> <20061228123616.GA8652@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> <20061228145728.4f13fa4a@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <4594049E.2040404@mac.com> <20061228203313.0752d58e@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote: > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:53:34 -0500 > Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote: >> However, sometimes mail systems go down or block traffic for whatever >> reason: postmaster's job is a thankless task, and this was true even >> before spam and viral email appeared. Nowadays, it's harder to get >> things mostly right (nevermind "perfect"), so postmasters make >> imperfect decisions because they are faced with undesirable tradeoffs. > > Indeed :-( > > However banning a hole country isn't a tradeoff in my book, it's just > plain [inset_the_word_here]. And sin[c]e it's giving a 5XX code there's > really no way to reach the person in question. I agree that blocking a whole country is a mistake. Short of posting to the mailing list, there's no way to reach whoever it is. Although I've CC:ed him on the thread. >> It has not been my observation that insisting people not make any >> mistakes commonly results in fewer mistakes being made, or much less, >> in zero mistakes being made. :-) Rather than try to insist they >> "are not allowed" to do something, I'd prefer to let people make >> their own decisions and learn which ones are mistakes. YMMV.... > > The problem is that, IMHO, this kind of rejecting affects us all as I > think that being a port maintainer implies receiving and replying to > users' email. Certainly true. People doing stuff with FreeBSD ought to whitelist @freebsd.org in particular; that would make committers lives easier. But email and even Internet access are not completely reliable; people go away on vacations sometimes, for a timely example. (Merry Christmas/holidays all. :-) For a maintainer timeout to be useful, there needs to be a pending PR and/or someone else willing to be more accessible. Update the current PR with the bounce and set responsible to Nivo, committing the change or not as you feel best; or file a new PR listing another maintainer if one is available and wait for the standard timeout period pending resolution by the hat-wearing demigods known as portmgr@. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45941901.7050503>