From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org  Sat Jan  2 03:20:15 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80911A5DBEC
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Sat,  2 Jan 2016 03:20:15 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2F118DE
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Sat,  2 Jan 2016 03:20:15 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u023KFRq017619
 for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 03:20:15 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 205475] [NEW PORT] x11-themes/gtk-E17-theme: Dark GTK theme for
 Enlightenment
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:20:15 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages
X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s)
X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: feature, patch, patch-ready
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me
X-Bugzilla-Who: matthew@reztek.cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-205475-13-fDeK0AG0Ms@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-205475-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-205475-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ports bug reports <freebsd-ports-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports-bugs>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:20:15 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D205475

--- Comment #6 from matthew@reztek.cz ---
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #5)

Since a new port has no maintainer until its committed, by definition there=
 is
no maintainer to approve, exactly the same as an existing port without
maintainer. I'm still waiting some logical explanation for the difference in
handling, and that should include an explanation of why maintainer-approval
exists but is not used in such a way to be useful filter criteria. This dead
simple theme port sits for weeks. Is that because it doesn't show up in
Maintainer Approved saved search that committers with a free moment might l=
ook
at first?

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=