From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 7 05:54:47 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472CD106566C; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:54:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (pancho.soaustin.net [76.74.250.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B49C8FC15; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:54:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 686E6561B2; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 00:54:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 00:54:46 -0500 From: Mark Linimon To: Alexey Dokuchaev Message-ID: <20110907055446.GA8016@lonesome.com> References: <20110904164946.GB18504@FreeBSD.org> <4E640AD2.20305@FreeBSD.org> <20110905020118.GA85980@FreeBSD.org> <20110905031009.GA92369@FreeBSD.org> <571B63BD-9C54-444B-AE93-8C9F958B1253@gmail.com> <14e2425b88fb827b72f11b1b9099c343@mail.0x20.net> <20110907012149.GA51042@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110907012149.GA51042@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Doug Barton , Lars Engels , cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Maksim Yevmenkin , cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports MOVED ports/comms Makefile ports/comms/hcidump Makefile distinfo pkg-descr ports/comms/hcidump/files patch-hcidump-Makefile patch-parser-Makefile patch-parser.c X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:54:47 -0000 On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:21:49AM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > so, can we please resurrect the port now? if needed you can put me > > (emax@) as maintainer. > > i already did yesterday. maintainer was pav@, so i leaved it as is. um? pav agreed that the port should be deleted. Why do you think you should give it back to him? He already implicitly said he didn't want it. It should be the responsibility of whoever resurrects a port to maintain it, not whoever happened to last be listed. This just seems like plain common sense to me. mcl