Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:34:47 +0100
From:      Marcus von Appen <mva@freebsd.org>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
Message-ID:  <20131218123447.Horde.eGxQRPvmEcSlgsi4V4UKGw1@webmail.df.eu>
In-Reply-To: <CACvtUJdQL1N59Nn12MBu6NHiQAK3r_%2BBq0RArs99iNK4iOjweA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <52B0D149.5020308@marino.st> <20131218064459.GA5354@tuxaco.net> <CACvtUJdQL1N59Nn12MBu6NHiQAK3r_%2BBq0RArs99iNK4iOjweA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Markiyan Kushnir <markiyan.kushnir@gmail.com>:

> It sounds like a need for a more grained structure of the
> ports-related communication, just because the community is growing.
> Very often there is a need to discuss one's issue in a list prior to
> filing a PR. And yes, *discuss*, I agree with John, people should show
> they want to discuss their failed builds, whatever.
>
> I think automated failure reports (ports-qat) would easily be assigned
> to a separate list.
>
> I would suggest at least the following divisions: ports-questions@
> would be for things like howtos, problems with managing ports,
> upgrading, versioning, etc. ports-devel@ for all sorts of ports
> build/install issues (port maintainers would be the primary
> responders), and ports-auto@ for automated repots like QAT. And the
> current ports@ would be aliased to ports-questions@.

There's already ports-bugs@ for issues with ports (see the info on
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs).
And this also would be the correct address for QAT reports, which
are actually spamming the ports@ list (also imho).

Personally, I do not think that we need yet another list :-).

Cheers
Marcus





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131218123447.Horde.eGxQRPvmEcSlgsi4V4UKGw1>