From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 14 09:03:29 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ruby@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B671065673
	for <ruby@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:03:29 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (pancho.soaustin.net [76.74.250.40])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E168FC16
	for <ruby@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:03:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 03272569A3; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:46:13 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:46:12 +0000
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20100914084612.GC13222@lonesome.com>
References: <4C8EB9BC.4020208@p6m7g8.com>
	<20100913173804.d4aa5eb9.stas@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100913173804.d4aa5eb9.stas@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: ruby@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Port Management Team <portmgr@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: portupgrade
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions <freebsd-ruby.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ruby>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ruby-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ruby>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ruby-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ruby>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ruby-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:03:29 -0000

I think the general question is, "who really wants to maintain portupgrade
right now."

The main thing for me is that the PRs ought to be assigned somewhere.  If
no one has time to go through them, let's just reassign them to ports@.
(Yes, I understand that portupgrade PRs are a total pain in the butt: a
combination of problems that may affect many users; problems that only
affect edge conditions; and problems where the port metadata itself is
at fault, not portupgrade.  Nevertheless, if no one is going to work on
them, assigning them to ruby@ merely misleads our users.)

I was never a fan of it being assigned to ruby@, since I'm not much of a
fan of assigning ports to mailing lists anyways.  The nicest way to put
it is that the results are "mixed".

stas, who else other than yourself is working on it?  Do we really think
it has a future?  (Having said that, I still rely on it, so I'm not trying
to make a judgement here.)

mcl