Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:49:40 -0500 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org>, marino@freebsd.org, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, Adam Weinberger <adamw@anoxia.adamw.org>, Antoine Brodin <antoine@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422160 - in head: chinese/fortune french/fortune-mod-zarathoustra misc/fortune-mod-bible misc/fortune-mod-bofh misc/fortune-mod-culmea-culmilor misc/fortune-mod-epictetus misc/fortune-... Message-ID: <00cb53dd-c51f-ce2f-378d-9e77d49e830b@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <0aaad8b7-67f7-1b08-81be-7610d74d5e1c@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609141950.u8EJolO7085386@repo.freebsd.org> <857FD0DF-6ADA-48F5-B02B-81BCA7135E2C@adamw.org> <03e06c33-6185-334f-bf04-71321aaf2cb7@FreeBSD.org> <9ffe58d7-66b0-b357-1777-6e4d3d4f5297@marino.st> <fea8b56c-6aa1-2ec9-f66f-e17a8a912e0a@FreeBSD.org> <9d118285-dd65-0b88-59cd-c8130d4d4f6f@marino.st> <087264b0-36ab-e844-f2f9-8389566dd654@FreeBSD.org> <55840821-5f88-54b6-4b99-eb8e09d0ae22@marino.st> <0aaad8b7-67f7-1b08-81be-7610d74d5e1c@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/14/2016 17:43, Steve Wills wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/14/2016 18:01, John Marino wrote: >> Fact 2) I solved the problem. The ports were cleaner as a result. > > I think the disagreement is here. Not everyone agrees it's cleaner, > particularly having an un-maintained copy of fortune_strfile duplicating > the one in base. Only something that didn't review the commit would say that. It is cleaner and that's pretty much indisputable. As I said, had I known Antoine and Bryan were going to pull that stunt, I would have put my name back on the port and just squated on it as others do. > >> Fact 3) Somebody exerted energy to revert my work >> >> There are over 26,000 ports. This one should have caused no one to >> notice. Half of the fortune ports are currently marked broken because >> they are unfetchable. Even if you disagree for whatever reason, at >> *worst* it wasn't hurting anything. > > But the disagreement is that it is setting a bad precedent, I think. agree to disagree > > I think exploiting a "loophole" in the rules to add an un-maintained > port isn't going to win any kudos. I wasn't trying to get away with anything. I didn' t think I was doing anything wrong and I still don't. > > Aside from the above comments, I've tried to keep my communication > focused on technical details rather that personal issues to avoid making > this more frustrating. Let's get back to the technical issues now. the problem is none of this is technical. If this was based on technical review, first there would have been a discussion which didn't happen. It's pure emotion. --- 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?00cb53dd-c51f-ce2f-378d-9e77d49e830b>