Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 02:29:12 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Heikki Suonsivu <hsu@clinet.fi> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xemacs 19.13 diffs - will someone commit them under my name? Message-ID: <12424.818159352@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Dec 1995 08:15:56 %2B0200." <199512050615.IAA07046@katiska.clinet.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I would propose that ports would not be committed at all before the patches > have been sent to authors. If it is optional, people are too lazy to do Argh. No! We don't need big brother - big brother is frequently asleep or buried in exams anyway. We need better brother. We need to extend the ports mechanism so that *more state* is kept with each port. We have a MAINTAINER field, for example, but it only tracks *our* maintainer! What if you want to get in touch with the original source? The computer is supposed to be our helper here, so make IT deal with figuring out how to send patches back to maintainers! I'm perfectly serious. I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to run a script over the ports collection to bundle up mail messages (which I would of course review before sending) to each of the *original* maintainers consisting of a short explanatory message and a shar file of the patches still required by FreeBSD. Run the script every couple of months and keep stats on whether or not the number of patch files in the tree grows or shrinks so you'll know whether or not it's working. The answer is not in more draconian policies, it's in working *smarter*. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12424.818159352>