If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
markiyan.kushnir at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 08:17:23 UTC 2013
It sounds like a need for a more grained structure of the
ports-related communication, just because the community is growing.
Very often there is a need to discuss one's issue in a list prior to
filing a PR. And yes, *discuss*, I agree with John, people should show
they want to discuss their failed builds, whatever.
I think automated failure reports (ports-qat) would easily be assigned
to a separate list.
I would suggest at least the following divisions: ports-questions@
would be for things like howtos, problems with managing ports,
upgrading, versioning, etc. ports-devel@ for all sorts of ports
build/install issues (port maintainers would be the primary
responders), and ports-auto@ for automated repots like QAT. And the
current ports@ would be aliased to ports-questions at .
2013/12/18 Philippe Audéoud <jadawin at freebsd.org>:
> On mar, 17 déc 2013, John Marino wrote:
>> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
>> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
>> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
>> this method of bypassing writing PRs. One user even proudly boasted
>> that sending email to ports@ is faster than writing a PR so of course he
>> was going to do that instead.
>> If this kind of post is acceptable to the rest of the people here, and
>> I'm alone in not only finding it very rude, but also making the volume
>> of ports@ too high, then please tell me that the problem is with me.
>> If nothing is going to change, I am going to unsubscribe from ports@
>> list. The gcc developers on gcc at gcc.gnu.org always tell a poster when a
>> post in appropriate for that list and as a result and as a result the
>> posters usually only make a mistake once. I'd like to see something
>> closer to that, but if the list isn't going to be policed then it's too
>> noisy for me.
> They don't start their mail wihtout saying "hello"... like you. People
> are not polite and we won't change it.
> I agree with you that users don't have to use ports@ instead of GNATS
> but the fact is that we are slow on GNATS: we still have untouched PR
> since beginning 2013 (because i closed 2006, 2011 and 2012).
> If we want to change that we have to explain how to use PR (or simply remind
> it to users) and to be reactive on GNATS. In my opinon; guilty people
> are not users but us. Users find a quicker way and they use it.
> Philippe Audéoud
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-ports