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

[John Marino]

On 1/27/2016 3:24 PM, John Marino wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

Okay, I'll revert it with a commit message that records my protest.