svn commit: r422114 - head/misc/fortune_strfile

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 14/09/2016 à 15:52, John Marino a écrit :
> On 9/14/2016 08:41, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 14/09/2016 à 14:27, John Marino a écrit :
>>>
>>> But this is NOT an error.  You see it as a violation of the "spirit"
>>> of the policy, but it's not a violation of the policy itself.  If you
>>> think there should be a minimum ownership period then work on
>>> adjusting the policy (through consensus hopefully).  I met the
>>> requirements and it was all very intentionally on my part, no error at
>>> all, and certainly not without precedent.
>>
>> And you are ranting with legalese talk again. Our policies are for
>> normal people, not lawyers, and thus, require you to extrapolate a bit
>> and use common sense.
>> This is why, for example, the porter's handbook is 350 pages long, not
>> 25000, with 42 annexes.
>>
>> Now, to the subject at hand, new ports must have a maintainer, in this
>> case, you did not follow the policy, it is a new port, and it does not
>> have maintainer.
>>
>
> I followed the "law".  I maintained the port long enough to ensure
> that it fulfilled its purpose.
>
> Lawyers and judges exist for a reason, to interpret badly written laws
> and policies.  Again, if there is a MINIMUM time to maintain a port,
> please add it to the policy.

Here, we are maintaining an operating system, it is not a tribunal.  And
no, there will not be a hard definition of how long a port is considered
new, like I said, common sense, less than six months but more than a
week, or something.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/attachments/20160914/4aa39b9f/attachment.sig>