If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing
koobs.freebsd at gmail.com
Fri Dec 20 14:09:48 UTC 2013
On 21/12/2013 12:41 AM, John Marino wrote:
> 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.
I appreciate the distinction, and I agree with your premises. Setting a
high standard is not in question.
If your aim however, is to change or influence others, and you'll grant
that not everyone can know all there is to know about the values and
behaviours we espouse in advance, then a reply guiding (read: leading)
those individuals in the right direction would likely prove more
effective than what was perhaps just a symptom of frustration.
If you don't feel up to taking on that role, then maybe unsubscribing is
the way to go, though I hope its not as you have a lot of value to add.
More information about the freebsd-ports