Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:39:13 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dirk Meyer <dinoex@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile Message-ID: <4D98DAF1.5080802@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110403055703.GA81066@magic.hamla.org> References: <201104021205.p32C5Y8g082718@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110402155230.GA80090@magic.hamla.org> <4D978D14.406@FreeBSD.org> <20110403055703.GA81066@magic.hamla.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/2/2011 10:57 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > I share your rationale for the most part, but I am still unclear about > what some might call an 'edge' case. It sounds to me like what you want are clear, bright lines that we can form policy around. I wish you luck with that. :) Meanwhile, given the way that our ports and packages work bumping PORTREVISION is a blunt tool, and has tradeoffs. IMO ports committers need to have some firm guidelines for the common cases, but also to use their discretion on the edges. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D98DAF1.5080802>