Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:47:48 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, Martin Wilke <miwi.fbsd@gmail.com> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <56A88434.3080407@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <56A881F0.4040103@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFY%2ByEkOv9-JaJv45WF-GzTxOiFh6k8sZ4rysUS5xTZs=rWNrA@mail.gmail.com> <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> <56A87EC8.7060401@marino.st> <56A881F0.4040103@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/27/2016 9:38 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> Wait, so you are saying we should tell people things are deprecated >> without recommendations about what to do about it? > > No, that is not what was claimed. > > What was said (as per the quoted text above), was that the > recommendation was preferential, biased at best, if not a conflict of > interest. Nowhere does it say or claim that recommendations should not > be provided. Yes, I am biased. I listed the two (and in the case of T2 platforms) one option to migrate. I did not list portupgrade because I was under the assumption it wasn't in great shape, but based on danfe's contribution, maybe portupgrade should be added to the message. Is the message accurate if it were committed by an unbiased person? If yes, then the bias is irrelevant. I made an honest attempt at a good deprecation message. The fact that I made it doesn't invalidate the message. >> 2) this port does not need a maintainer, it needs a DEVELOPER. > > Nit picking, since both previous maintainers also developed it. > > But yes, agreed, it would need a 'developer' to 'maintain it'. I'm not nit-picking. THere is a distinction. A maintainer can be limited to making sure it builds, sending PR upstream, handling patches, etc. A developer has to write and fix code. It's a major level higher. I am not being pedantic, I think the level of developer is needed here. Bryan was qualified. The next guy has to be equally qualified. >> 4) Actually there is a non-signficant faction that would very much like >> to see portmaster dead, mainly for the reasons 1-3. > > Digression from the main issue and irrelevant to why people have > responded to this change. It is not a digression. It's a direct response to "let's not hasten demise" -- that's exactly what some people want to do so why tells them not to? > > Also, it's perfectly possible to not want a port DEPRECATED, and not be > 'pro' that-port. obviously, but that voice is weak. Portmaster ownership has to be addressed and saying "don't do it" without offering a solution is not contributing anything. And frankly, that case is also likely that the person saying these things isn't fully informed. It's easy to say, "keep it" when it's no skin off your nose. I'm saying, put some skin in the game.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A88434.3080407>