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

[Bryan Drewery]

On 12/17/2013 4:33 PM, John Marino wrote:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello".  I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs.  One user even proudly boasted
> that sending email to ports@ is faster than writing a PR so of course he
> was going to do that instead.
> 
> If this kind of post is acceptable to the rest of the people here, and
> I'm alone in not only finding it very rude, but also making the volume
> of ports@ too high, then please tell me that the problem is with me.
> 
> If nothing is going to change, I am going to unsubscribe from ports@
> list.  The gcc developers on gcc at gcc.gnu.org always tell a poster when a
> post in appropriate for that list and as a result and as a result the
> posters usually only make a mistake once.  I'd like to see something
> closer to that, but if the list isn't going to be policed then it's too
> noisy for me.
> 
> John

I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
either. It tells everyone that "yes" there is a problem with this port
and "it's not just me".

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20131219/3889b479/attachment.sig>