On 2012-Apr-10, 06:56, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:45:38PM +0200, Frederic Culot wrote: > > To conciliate such a necessary action without hurting the feelings of those > > maintainers who despite their work could not update the state of their port > > in a > > timely manner, maybe it would be good to be more verbose in the log of such > > commits. Inspired by linimon's emails, something like the following could be > > added: > > I do get some responses from maintainers to those emails, and (except > in the cases where the email gets stuck in my mbox) I honor their requests > for an extension. OTOH in general I get personal replies and not replies > to the list, so people aren't seeing that interaction in public. > > From my standpoint, by the time something has been broken for 6 months, > the maintainer will have already gotten multiple emails from portsmon. > So, I'm going to have to say I'm a little frustrated if I need to send > another round of mail even on top of that.
That's exactly my point: maintainers are very likely to know the situation by the time these deprecation campaigns set off, and committing to their ports without prior approval is in contrast with our policy. I still do not see the necessity to deprecate maintained ports, even though a port might be maintained as broken for a long period of time. The maintainer might be waiting for something to happen either upstream or in our infrastructure, which could release the port from brokenness. -- Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project g...@freebsd.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp
pgpWY2RVMXgYc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
