cvs commit: ports/devel/ZendOptimizer pkg-descr
ports/audio/abcmidi pkg-descr ports/astro/accrete pkg-descr
ports/devel/adabooch pkg-descr ports/databases/aolserver-nsmysql pkg-descr
ports/archivers/aolserver-nszlib pkg-descr ports/comms/aprsd ...
Mark Linimon
linimon at lonesome.com
Mon Oct 24 07:54:29 UTC 2011
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:20:44PM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> It's also a good gesture to inform a maintainer of the port of the
> planned changes ask for his/her agreement
True ... but in the cases like this which would require hundreds of
approval emails, it's not very feasible.
> Getting the mentor and portmgr@ approval is obviously not enough for
> that kind of changes, there should've been a community consensus on
> this first [...] (even portmgr@ is not authorized to make that kind
> of changes unless they're fixing the broken thing).
If you read the portmgr charter, we've been given a lot of leeway.
core@ felt that when writing the document that "go fix it" outweighed
many other considerations.
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that this change was controversial; to
me, it seemed somewhat mechanical.
For cases where functionality changes, I could see it.
mcl
More information about the cvs-ports
mailing list