svn commit: r442588 - in head/www: nginx nginx-full

[Bartek Rutkowski]

> On 8 Jun 2017, at 22:21, Sergey A. Osokin <osa at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:24:24AM +0100, Bartek Rutkowski wrote:
>> 
>>> On 7 Jun 2017, at 23:06, Sergey A. Osokin <osa at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:32:17PM +0100, Bartek Rutkowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Jun 2017, at 01:18, Sergey A. Osokin <osa at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Bartek and Adam,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think I can get this, so two questions for you guys:
>>>>> o) what was the reason to bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx?
>>>>> o) wouldn't it btter to just bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx-full?
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>> 
>>>> Let me explain it quickly: some time ago you've removed two external modules from www/nginx port, which is a master for www/nginx-full. The www/nginx-full had them in default options, what caused port/pkg build failures and to fix these I needed to remove these two no longer existing modules from default options. After doing so, since it *does* change the contents of the package, I needed to bump the PORTREVISION of www/nginx-full and there were few ways of doing so, but none of them was easy/simple as they were creating even complex scenarios in future bumps/updates, so, after consulting possible solutions with portmgr members, I've chosen one, that while not ideal, have solved the issue for now without creating other issues in future, that is to bump the master www/nginx revision.
>>>> 
>>>> Hope that helps.
>>> 
>>> Hi Bartek,
>>> 
>>> Please don't bump PORTREVISION on www/nginx when you need to do so
>>> in www/nginx-full.
>> 
>> Sergey,
>> 
>> I tried to explain you why it was necessary - it wasn't my 'oh, I just want to bump some ports revisions' spree. It was discussed with portmgr members and approved with adamw at . This is how master/slave relationship works in our ports and there was no other better way around it. Hope you'll understand that and accept it in future, where similar action would be required.
> 
> Bartek,
> 
> Explanations are wrong.  Again, I see no reason to bump revision in www/nginx because
> it was possible to bump it in www/nginx-full.
> 
> If you guys ready to support www/nginx without my hamble opinion, please let me know,
> I'll pass the maintainership of it to you immediately.

Sergey,

You are simply wrong here. Bumping www/nginx revision was in fact necessary and to avoid a situation like this, I've talked to portmgr members before doing so, to get their insight and it was confirmed, that this was the right thing to do.

The rules for when revision bumps are quired are clearly outlined in the Porters Handbook, and the rules for when port may be changed without prior approval from its maintainer are there as well. You need to understand that and accept it - we are the team working on Ports Tree together, and maintainers are not port owners, they are 'first of the many guardians' if I may allow myself being a bit poetic. Understanding and accepting these facts will help us all cooperating better, and I (and I am sure I speak for the many) am very grateful for all the hard work you're putting into the ports you maintain - no dramatic actions like dropping maintainership are necessary.

I hope this will close the subject for good, lets get back to work!

Kind regards,
Bartek Rutkowski