If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
erichsfreebsdlist at alogt.com
Thu Dec 19 14:09:46 UTC 2013
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
Rodrigo Osorio <rodrigo at bebik.net> wrote:
> On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > 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?
> IMHO, it's the only way to reach quality in the port tree with a very
> accurate traceability.
you want to say i.e. all the e-mails regarding the switch to KMS
supported X should be PRs just because the writer did not read UPDATING
and the other sources? I think that this can easily handled here
without any PR.
More information about the freebsd-ports