Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:02:49 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r383472 - head/audio/muse Message-ID: <55238F29.1010404@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20150407075154.GA58322@FreeBSD.org> References: <201504061859.t36IxK0v000969@svn.freebsd.org> <20150407012902.GA22994@FreeBSD.org> <91AB85D3-A8DE-491C-A2D7-4E8D7E1CDC12@adamw.org> <20150407023204.GA44784@FreeBSD.org> <552376AD.7010903@marino.st> <20150407070711.GA90710@FreeBSD.org> <552386FA.7030007@marino.st> <20150407075154.GA58322@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/7/2015 09:51, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:27:54AM +0200, John Marino wrote: >> There's only 3 cases: >> 1) the maintainer is doing it himself (not your business) > > I beg to disagree. Being a maintainer does not mean one can do anything > about the port; there are certain rules, bylaws, and guidelines on how to > maintain a port properly and not make work of others harder. No rules or bylaws are being violated. The "svn blame trumps all" guideline is what I'm challenging. I think the negative outweighs the positive. > Also, mind > the fact that maintainers (in a long run) come and go, so it might not be > mine (or yours) today, but not necessarily tomorrow. Sure, but as long as the port is actively maintained under good practices and current standards, then we should defer to their judgement. (actual errors of course are always fair game) >> ports@FreeBSD.org ports are one step above deprecation. Just let >> drive-by fixers do their job on unwanted ports without giving them too >> much grief. That's my opinion. > > I generally disagree with this concept of unmaintained => one step above > deprecation and unwanted. I've given away quite a bunch of my ports, > which are certainly not unwanted and are up-to-date and in good working > condition, just because I do not want to pose a hard lock on them, and > they are hard to mess up with. That said, what's wrong with having them > "maintained by the community" (by ports@)? I like this reading of what > does "maintained by ports@" really mean better. :-) > > MAINTAINER=ports@ should not be a scarlet letter. Well, we've had this discussion before. There's no reason to release maintainership now with the more lax blankets. The fear of committing to a maintained port is mostly gone with the exception of a very few maintainers that insist even spelling error and typo fixes still need to run by them somehow. "maintained by community" means "maintained by nobody" and you only have to look at pkgsrc to see how successful this approach is. I'll continue work under the concept "ports@FreeBSD.org" ports are unloved and fair game. I don't think I'm alone. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55238F29.1010404>