svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 27/01/2016 7:17 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:40:46PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>> I find no issue with notifying users that portmaster is *currently*
>> unmaintained and has open issues, and that support can't *currently*
>> be provided for it.
>>
>> However, I don't believe we ought take actions that hasten its demise.
>> In fact, I believe a statement to the effect that we *want* someone to
>> take maintainership in order to avoid further bitrot would be
>> worthwhile.
> 
> It's funny how easily we deprecate some things (G2, KDE3, pre-KMS X.org,
> etc.) yet *want* someone to take maintainership in order to avoid further
> bitrot of broken and inferior reimplementation of portupgrade. :-)

I only meant that we can get better at explicitly asking/saying so, and
this was just one example. It would also be better if we did it
proactively, rather than reactively, long before something like
deprecated is needed.

I would propose needs-a-maintainer at FreeBSD.org or equivalent instead of
ports at FreeBSD.org, if I didn't think it would distract from the main
issue here. We can talk on IRC about it.

>> Given what the term 'deprecated' implies, I would use a pre-everything:
>> message instead.
> 
> That's a good idea actually.

It would be nice to have something framework'ey that is less loaded than
DEPRECATED, but more specific and consistent than your standard ECHO_MSG
or pkg-message. Like CAUTION/ALERT/WARNING/INFORMATIONAL or similar.

Again let's talk on IRC :)

> ./danfe
>