Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:09:16 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: Rodrigo Osorio <rodrigo@bebik.net> Cc: David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com>, "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org, freebsd.contact@marino.st Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing Message-ID: <20131219220916.0b5fbde5@X220.alogt.com> In-Reply-To: <20131219134641.GA5264@oldfaithful.bebik.local> References: <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> <CAO%2BPfDfV6qdnNMgfrMDj=QumP4yc%2BRWUop_iNybTomObVwaAnA@mail.gmail.com> <20131219135421.63d7cd20@X220.alogt.com> <52B2EECA.10908@marino.st> <20131219214150.4dd55b09@X220.alogt.com> <20131219134641.GA5264@oldfaithful.bebik.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100 Rodrigo Osorio <rodrigo@bebik.net> wrote: > On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100 > > John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: > > > > > On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > > you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not > > > > marked broken has to work. > > > > > > I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell > > > you from experience that this assumption is not valid. > > > > so, you want to say, that all the little problems which are solved > > mainly by people who are not the maintainer should become PRs? > > IMHO, it's the only way to reach quality in the port tree with a very > accurate traceability. you want to say i.e. all the e-mails regarding the switch to KMS supported X should be PRs just because the writer did not read UPDATING and the other sources? I think that this can easily handled here without any PR. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131219220916.0b5fbde5>