If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
freebsd.contact at marino.st
Thu Dec 19 13:47:18 UTC 2013
On 12/19/2013 14:41, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> 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?
Yes, that's the point.
The GNATs system hold searchable information for others that care:
A) A PR has already been filed
B) A fix may already be proposed
C) The state of the fix
D) Whether the maintainer is delinquent. After a "timeout" (two weeks)
other maintainers can take over any submitted fix. Without a PR, we
don't know the port maintainer is delinquent, so we assume he/she is
not. You have to submit the PR to start to two-week countdown.
E) Many improvements come from people that are not maintainers.
> The sender of an e-mail does not need the majority but a single
> individual with the proper hint.
For the reasons above, a PR is still better. The rest of us have
visibility if we care, and the maintainer still gets an email from the
More information about the freebsd-ports