If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

[Erich Dollansky]

Hi,

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:

> On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked
> > broken has to work. 
> 
> I build the entire port tree several times a month.  I can tell you
> from experience that this assumption is not valid.

so, you want to say, that all the little problems which are solved
mainly by people who are not the maintainer should become PRs?
> 
> > So, the fault is on our side. Why should we spam
> > GNATS with our problem? 
> > GNATS for confirmed problems, the list for anything else.
> 
> Where is this cited?
> PRs are not for confirmed problems.  They are for any problem.
> 
> However, this kind of "confirmation" post is not the type of post I
> was complaining about.  Unless your "confirmation" is no more than an
> except of a log, then it is.
> 
> To iterate my opinion, if a breakage is a symptom of a systematic
> issue, or the port in question breaks like 6000 dependent ports, the
> ports@ is appropriate.  If it's a single broken port, then a PR is
> appropriate. Alternatively, email the maintainer only.  The majority
> of us on this list do not care about individual broken ports and
> getting a sent a log is noise at best.

The sender of an e-mail does not need the majority but a single
individual with the proper hint.

Erich