From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 6 12:09:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F42716A4CE; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:09:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de [212.202.50.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4851243D53; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:09:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from dhcp-11.local ([172.16.0.11]) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1Bt3X9-000MUI-Ia; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:09:16 +0200 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:10:42 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) To: Volker Stolz From: Oliver Eikemeier In-Reply-To: <20040806105729.GL7280@i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: smazanek@steffen-mazanek.de cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/cgoban2 Makefile distinfo pkg-plist X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:09:17 -0000 Volker Stolz wrote: > Am 06. Aug 2004 um 12:25 CEST schrieb Oliver Eikemeier: >>> Approved by: The-Not-Really-Much-To-Do-Here-Department >> >> Who are the members of the The-Not-Really-Much-To-Do-Here-Department? >> Has Steffen Mazanek CCed? > > Please check the commit-history of this port: It is basically just a > single > JAR-file and older versions get removed from the master-site as soon > as a > new one is released, leading to frequent brokeness. Steffen didn't > object to > the previous minor update and received a forward of the commit-message. > [I appreciate that somebody even bothers to take a look, though! If > portmgr > disapproves of this practice in general, I'll take the blame.] Hmmm... When you feel we need something less bureaucratic that waiting for maintainer approval for small fixes, we should establish rules for that and document them. I even wondered myself how to document this for some of my ports (Basically saying that I care for them, but feel fine when others will fix bug when they find them). OTOH I can't see whether Steffen was happy with the last minor update by just looking at the commit log, and I don't like fake approvals. Let this commit stand as is, it is no big deal in this case, but since you have to draw the line somewhere either submit criteria for commits that don't need maintainer approval so we can discuss them (preferred fix) or just wait for maintainer timeout next time (easy fix). Btw, perhaps Steffen should submit a request upstream to keep older versions a little longer, to avoid the problems we are currently experiencing. This would be better than silently fixing the symptoms without improving the situation. -Oliver