Hello! On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 02:22:36PM +0100, steven mestdagh wrote: >[...]
>> And I agree with Hannah, please commit this port as is, since it's >> much better than the one currently in the ports tree, it's just broken >> and old. >I think now is not the right time to bring in more updates, as has been >asked by a few people already. We like to get a port right before >committing it. 'Anything is better than...' does not make sense to me. >I suggest you finetune the erlang port after tree lock and then it can >get the necessary testing. Frankly, I'm somewhat pissed off. I'm one of those quite a few people who prepared erlang port submissions over the last few years. Nothing ever got committed. Around the last release I expressed that sentiment a bit and got a kind of promise that the port would be taken up by one of the committers (I don't remember who it was, but I could look it up) after the 3.8 release. This didn't happen. And... I *do* think "anything is better" in this case. The in-tree erlang port just doesn't work *at all*, and is shipped, even without a BROKEN status. Any of the submissions of the last few years definitely work(ed) better than that. Much better indeed. I don't have too much time/energy to spare for non-paid computer work, and what happened around the erlang port was/is actually another negative incentive for me. >steven Kind regards, Hannah.
