Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:37:05 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <20160127153705.GA7247@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <56A8D314.2060701@marino.st> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <56A80CFF.7070900@FreeBSD.org> <20160127080158.GR87372@droso.dk> <56A88003.5020709@marino.st> <04661B677FE921A27AEB06FE@ogg.in.absolight.net> <56A8CE88.3040702@marino.st> <C61EFF7D53F2B5AECDA6B74B@ogg.in.absolight.net> <56A8D314.2060701@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:24:20PM +0100, John Marino wrote: > On 1/27/2016 3:14 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > The ports tree is the responsibility of portmgr, henceforce, the global > > maintainer of the ports tree, is portmgr, Bryan said it was a bad idea, > > and Erwin asked you to revert it. Both are members of portmgr. > > Er, that's not what Bryan said. He said there should be a discussion on > it. > > And this definition of "maintainer" has never been mentioned before. > Should I reassign all PRs of unmaintained ports in bugzilla to portmgr? > according to this definition, yes, that's what should happen. "Be > careful what you wish for" comes to mind. > > > So, revert it. > > What is the forward plan? This is not the first time I'm afraid when portmgr@ is bluntly asking to revert a commit without providing any sound reason to do so, and giving no answers to perfectly valid questions like the ones asked by John this time. His "forward plan" call was certainly warranted and shouldn't have been ignored like it essentially was. His commit did not brake things in any way; it attracted attention to an unmaintained port and its problems. While deprecation (in a way that is implied by DEPRECATED knob) is perhaps a bit too extreme (vs. suggested pre-everything: message), it could be handled in a much nicer way than it was -- at least allow him to soften the wording rather than completely reverting it. This "bitchy" attitude does not help to maintain healthy atmosphere portmgr@ often declare they want to keep and adhere to. :-( ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160127153705.GA7247>