svn commit: r406959 - in head/math: . py-cdecimal

[Maxim Sobolev]

Would it make you happier if I take maintainership and drop it tomorrow? :)
Technically not forbidden. Just to give you some background, I used to
maintain few hundred ports back in the days, so I am very discreet now.

It just says about some rules being quite out of date / unflexible, IMHO.
As an average joe user, between port not being present and port being
maintained by community I'd definitely prefer the latter, as it gives me a
good chance that it would just work. It would have saved me some time today
(which is why I did it, not because I've had nothing else better to do on
Friday afternoon). And if it does not work, it gives user incentive to file
a PR. So it's win-win all over the place. For myself, it just saves me a
trouble to having another chunk of private code in my own port repo.

-Max


On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:22 AM, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st>
wrote:

> On 1/23/2016 9:19 AM, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > Nah, it's just few lines of makefile-foo. Don't feel like getting
> > married to it for the rest of my life. :)
> >
> > "MAINTAINER=  ports at FreeBSD.org" means that anybody can tweak/update it
> > without getting blocked by me.
>
> Well, except for that it's a documented rule that all new ports must
> have a maintainer.  I thought there was even an SVN hook to enforce the
> rule.
>
> and for the 1000th time:  MAINTAINER=ports at freebsd.org == unmaintained,
> easy to purge if the port acts up.
> Not everyone subscribes to community maintainership.
>