Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:19:00 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> Cc: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/openoffice-1.1 Makefile Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403151712060.25184-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <4055BB1E.4010405@bis.midco.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hey! I'm just grateful the guy is doing this work, and you should be > too. You can install the binary package or even create the private > repository for him, but to criticize him for doing work on this > *incredibly complex* port is just simply WRONG. > > Please restrain yourself! We're lucky he's committing the time and > energy to work on this. If you can't put a positive spin on your > comments, i.e. "I will help you with this" or, "let me know what I can > do," just sit quietly like the rest of us. Oliver by no means "just sits quietly like the rest of us." He is a very active ports committer, which means that he is held to a very strict standard in his commits -- they have to not cause regressions, and they have to not break anything else outside that particular port. He holds other people to the same standards as well (and I should know, he toasted me for several things I missed last week). The philosophy of the ports tree is that (unless the port is postpended with -devel) that it should "just work", or it shouldn't be checked in. And, if a checkin to a -devel port would break something outside the port itself, it doesn't go in either. Without upholding those strict standards, there's no hope of getting the ports tree to work for most people on both OS releases and all the various architectures, and I don't think anyone wants the project to wind up in that situation. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0403151712060.25184-100000>