blanket portmgr approval vs. non-fixing changes

[Mathieu Arnold]

+--On 29 juin 2016 13:15:44 +0200 Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net>
wrote:
| Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
|> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
|>> 
|>> And I do think we should, opposite to what you are proposing, make the
|>> committer spend extra time for high-profile ports that entail sweeping
|>> changes to chase down the breaking change to, say, a library port.
|>> 
|> I might have been not explicit enough, of course any changes should be
|> tested, and of course high profile ports breaking means special
|> attention and prevent the sweeping change to actually happen.
|> 
| Sorry I think you're wrong at this point.
| 
| Define "high profile" ... Some library port that other obscure ports are
| dependent on..?  What say postgresql94-client or perhaps p5-Bucardo...
| something that only a few ports (if any) rely on, yet would be a massive
| problem for a lot of production servers/services if they were suddenly
| and quietly broken...

High profile is gmake, gettext, or libpng, those important things.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20160629/0d6c0140/attachment.sig>