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

[John Marino]

On 12/20/2013 14:17, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am that user too. A
> @FreeBSD.org email, commit bit and still a "new" user that doubts myself
> sometimes and looks to the team for the right thing to do.
> 
> If not for the encouragement of those in the project who grok what
> motivates and demotivates people, I wouldn't be doing what I do today.
> 
> This thread is a real shame, mired in technical minutia as if that's
> what really matters.
> 
> I am here to enable and be a steward for users like Anton, and your
> contributions are valued. So thank you for sharing.

This sentiment described above is fine, but "the thread" was never
focused on cases like this.  The very narrow focus is on when the user
is saavy enough to recognize that the problem is not him, and that the
problem deserves a report.  Rather than submit a PR however, the user
just sends it to ports at .  That is not the case you are talking about --
in your scenario, the user is going to provide context and express his
confusion or doubt.  That is a far cry from sending exclusively a build
log.  So the "real shame" is that topic is getting expanding to include
all user interaction which was never the intent.

btw, accepting PRs at ports@ because we the maintainers are not
processing GNATS PRs better is treating the symptom of a bigger issue.
Yes, GNATS is antiquated, and letting the user specified the
classification is beyond boneheaded (as is never fixing that issue).
However, a lot of the PR processing issues is centered on inadequate
policies and frankly a coddling of delinquent maintainers (I'd like to
see it a lot easier to loss commit privileges).  But this is an entirely
different topic, one that portmgr has to stop avoiding and start
addressing.  In fact, there are a lot of areas of policy that need
updating (for years now) that are flat-out being neglected.  But the PR
system as it exists today is still the official process so we should try
to make it work.

John