Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:01:56 +0100 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: "marino@freebsd.org" <marino@freebsd.org> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Philippe_Aud=C3=A9oud?= <jadawin@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date Message-ID: <E510362A-A8F1-42E3-B8EE-156F5DD022EA@grem.de> In-Reply-To: <5322DEE3.6030604@marino.st> References: <201403140915.s2E9Fa8I009565@portscout.freebsd.org> <5322CB0E.7000908@marino.st> <20140314093036.GB17905@tuxaco.net> <5322DE4E.7090200@marino.st> <5322DEE3.6030604@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 14 Mar 2014, at 11:50, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: >=20 >> On 3/14/2014 11:47, John Marino wrote: >>> On 3/14/2014 10:30, Philippe Aud=C3=A9oud wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, John Marino wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> On 3/14/2014 10:15, portscout@FreeBSD.org wrote: >>>>> Port | Current version | Ne= w version >>>>> ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+---= --------- >>>>> games/doomsday | 1.12.2 | 1.= 14.0-build1168 >>>>> ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+---= --------- >>>>=20 >>>> This port squawks constantly. >>>> Can we either get the last submitter to take it over or put it on the >>>> to-be-killed list? Or tell portscout to ignore it? Too much noise on >>>> already high volume channel. >>>>=20 >>>> John >>>=20 >>> Hello John, >>>=20 >>> games/doomsday is maintained by ports@. >>=20 >> Right -- that's why portscout is bombarding the ports@ mail list. If it >> were maintained we wouldn't see it. >>=20 >>> games/doomsday is maintained by ports@. Feel free to make it as ignored >>> for portscout. >>=20 >> Is this the general understanding? Anytime any committer gets annoyed >> with high-frequency portscout squawks on ports@ we just disable it >> without asking? >=20 > I thought I caught this before it went out. > I wanted to suggest that maybe portscout can not send any notice to > ports@ by rule if the port is unmaintained. >=20 > what about that? > John The Doomsday port is particularly bad, true. What about a lower frequency fo= r those maintained by @ports (e.g. only first run of the month)? This way th= ere's still a chance someone picks it up and updates it while we won't get s= pammed constantly.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E510362A-A8F1-42E3-B8EE-156F5DD022EA>