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

[Rodrigo Osorio]

On 19/12/13 22:09 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Erich

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. 
 
 - rodrigo