If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
rodrigo at bebik.net
Thu Dec 19 15:06:23 UTC 2013
On 19/12/13 22:09 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> 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.
I don't think ocular problems are in my skills....but...
why not, specially if they think there is a real problem with a port.
I'm not saying PR is the only, mandatory, way to solve problems. You
can talk about a problem in forums,ml, wathever, but if a fix is required
it's better to report it as a PR.
PR are bette in many ways, with a PR, a problem is - most of the time - assigned to someone
so you can complain if nothing is done, in a ML, if nobody cares, there is no problem.
obviously, sumarize a problem takes or found a solution takes more time than shoot
a "this port doesn't work" email.
More information about the freebsd-ports