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

[John Marino]

On 1/27/2016 3:14 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> 
> 
> +--On 27 janvier 2016 15:04:56 +0100 John Marino
> <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:
> | On 1/27/2016 2:53 PM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> |> +--On 27 janvier 2016 09:29:55 +0100 John Marino
> |> 
> |> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/rules.html
> |> 
> |> 5. Any disputed change must be backed out pending resolution of the
> |> dispute if requested by a maintainer. Security related changes may
> |> override a maintainer's wishes at the Security Officer's discretion.
> |> 
> | 
> | Okay, let's play lawyer then.
> | 
> | "request by a maintainer".
> 
> The ports tree is the responsibility of portmgr, henceforce, the global
> maintainer of the ports tree, is portmgr,  Bryan said it was a bad idea,
> and Erwin asked you to revert it. Both are members of portmgr.

Er, that's not what Bryan said.  He said there should be a discussion on it.

And this definition of "maintainer" has never been mentioned before.
Should I reassign all PRs of unmaintained ports in bugzilla to portmgr?
 according to this definition, yes, that's what should happen.  "Be
careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

> 
> So, revert it.
> 

What is the forward plan?

If you or edwin revert it, I will not start a commit war.  I'll respect
it and not deprecate again, but demand a decision be taken.  This is a
principle thing for me.