Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 07:29:45 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/libotr Makefile ports/security/pidgin-otr Makefile Message-ID: <20110706072945.GB51480@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110705022932.GD6224@magic.hamla.org> References: <201107040755.p647tS0b082384@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110704162342.GD5630@magic.hamla.org> <4E122F0C.4080000@FreeBSD.org> <20110705022932.GD6224@magic.hamla.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 10:29:33PM -0400, Sahil Tandon wrote: > Is there an example of when either of these ports was bumped > inappropriately? We should not be bumping PORTREVISION without good > reason across *all* ports, so I want to understand why these two > particular ports that you maintain are being singled out with explicit > comments. I believe that Doug is trying to address very common problem these days when careless committers bump port revisions without giving sufficient thinking of whether it is really required. While you are absolutely right in that we should not be bumping PORTREVISION without good reason across *all* ports, in reality, not every one is willing to invest some of their time to think about if PORTREVISION bump is due every time they commit to a port. Also, many low quality PRs are being automatically committed with only minimal sanity check like tinderbox run. PORTREVISION is harmless and cheap, so why bother? :-( ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110706072945.GB51480>