Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:01:56 -0500 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422114 - head/misc/fortune_strfile Message-ID: <7cc95ce4-7fe7-c05c-b666-09b7d2317b58@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <c387605d-6e22-1659-d5ee-d6080e48d3d1@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609140545.u8E5jeBH058686@repo.freebsd.org> <eb09770a-b234-f889-2f2c-d6127ab76cc7@FreeBSD.org> <40537f68-1d2b-194c-55d5-b133d743ed3e@marino.st> <9063296a-9793-4cb3-1857-f5baf51cfbee@FreeBSD.org> <51b77b4e-8061-e183-ec68-d434d50bd0b2@marino.st> <26e04c98-fb1c-b7fa-0551-d1d7048a267e@FreeBSD.org> <7c0af911-8103-bfaf-65cd-da6f490c0137@marino.st> <c387605d-6e22-1659-d5ee-d6080e48d3d1@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/14/2016 08:55, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 14/09/2016 à 15:52, John Marino a écrit : >> On 9/14/2016 08:41, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >>> Le 14/09/2016 à 14:27, John Marino a écrit : >>>> >>>> But this is NOT an error. You see it as a violation of the "spirit" >>>> of the policy, but it's not a violation of the policy itself. If you >>>> think there should be a minimum ownership period then work on >>>> adjusting the policy (through consensus hopefully). I met the >>>> requirements and it was all very intentionally on my part, no error at >>>> all, and certainly not without precedent. >>> >>> And you are ranting with legalese talk again. Our policies are for >>> normal people, not lawyers, and thus, require you to extrapolate a bit >>> and use common sense. >>> This is why, for example, the porter's handbook is 350 pages long, not >>> 25000, with 42 annexes. >>> >>> Now, to the subject at hand, new ports must have a maintainer, in this >>> case, you did not follow the policy, it is a new port, and it does not >>> have maintainer. >>> >> >> I followed the "law". I maintained the port long enough to ensure >> that it fulfilled its purpose. >> >> Lawyers and judges exist for a reason, to interpret badly written laws >> and policies. Again, if there is a MINIMUM time to maintain a port, >> please add it to the policy. > > Here, we are maintaining an operating system, it is not a tribunal. And > no, there will not be a hard definition of how long a port is considered > new, like I said, common sense, less than six months but more than a > week, or something. > The fact is that I followed policy, and there is NO time definition at all. If there's not going to be a time definition, then you really have to cause tell me I interpreted this wrong. Again, there have been recent cases on this very list where people pushed unmaintained ports that were asked about once and the answer was a lot weaker than the one I gave and nobody questioned it And there are COUNTLESS examples of maintainership being dropped < 6 months. The bottom line is that I did NOTHING wrong and you don't have any justification for continuing to hound me on this. Fix the policy or live with the obvious loophole. Since you said the former isn't going to happen, we're in the latter case. JOhn --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7cc95ce4-7fe7-c05c-b666-09b7d2317b58>