svn commit: r358722 - head/Mk

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 09:37:25AM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 23 June 2014 05:45, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:17:19AM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >> On 21 June 2014 10:08, Mathieu Arnold <mat at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> > Author: mat
> >> > Date: Sat Jun 21 17:08:34 2014
> >> > New Revision: 358722
> >> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/358722
> >> > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r358722/
> >> >
> >> > Log:
> >> >   Add a small notice about maintainership of this file.
> >> >
> >> >   With hat:     portmgr
> >> >   Sponsored by: Absolight
> >> >
> >> > Modified:
> >> >   head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk
> >> >
> >> > Modified: head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk
> >> > ==============================================================================
> >> > --- head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk Sat Jun 21 17:03:33 2014        (r358721)
> >> > +++ head/Mk/bsd.options.desc.mk Sat Jun 21 17:08:34 2014        (r358722)
> >> > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
> >> >  #  - OPTION_DESC?= must be 19 characters or less
> >> >  #  - OPTION description text must be 43 characters or less
> >> >  #
> >> > +# - This file's MAINTAINER is ports at FreeBSD.org so that entries can be added to
> >> > +#   it easily.  Any sweeping changes should be approved by portmgr.
> >>
> >> IMHO this is silly.  The risk of changing description text is almost
> >> zero.  Sweeping changes should be reviewed, but I don't think gating
> >> the review on a member of portmgr is useful.
> >>
> > Given what happened recently on those yes portmgr needs to review those sweep
> 
> I'll copy what I wrote on phabricator:
> 
> If anything, the recent commits proved that this statement is exactly
> opposite of what it should be.
> 
> People add entries too easily, not realizing that this file is just a
> default. This means that new entries are often too general or useless.
> 
> Also, people are too discouraged to change the descriptions when they
> are useless.
> 
That is your opinion other people have a different opinion here

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/attachments/20140623/564da5ee/attachment-0001.sig>