From nobody Fri Jan 12 17:39:44 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TBTM15tPWz57DTM for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:39:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (udns.ultimatedns.net [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "ultimatedns.net", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TBTM14THFz4gZm; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:39:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTP id 40CHdiJm012717; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:39:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:39:44 -0800 From: Chris To: Gleb Popov Cc: Jamie Landeg-Jones , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports disabled for bsdforge In-Reply-To: References: <202401111126.40BBQgJ4028906@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <4ae511b8cf4e21ecfa8b4283ea369f6f@bsdforge.com> <202401121400.40CE04P1085845@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> User-Agent: UDNSMS/17.0 Message-ID: X-Sender: portmaster@bsdforge.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TBTM14THFz4gZm X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11404, ipnet:24.113.0.0/16, country:US] On 2024-01-12 07:04, Gleb Popov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:00 PM Jamie Landeg-Jones > wrote: >> >> I thought it was a bit rash of them to do all that so soon (it was obvious >> that the domain hadn't expired completely, as I could see that you renewed >> it before it was returned to being "unused".) >> >> But I didn't realise it was only 6 days! Jeeze, I have many PR's that >> haven't >> been looked at it months! > > There is a misconception that portmgr@ is in charge of going through > open unassigned PRs and committing them. But this is actually ports > committers' job. > > At the same time portmgr@ often performs large infrastructure changes > that require fixing hundreds and thousands of ports before landing > them (no one likes when someone else breaks your port, right?). Each > port added to the tree places a maintainership burden not only on an > actual maintainer but also on portmgr@. This makes portmgr@ strive to > eagerly remove ports that are standing in the way of big changes when > their maintainers are lacking time to fix them. Unfortunately this > makes portmgr@ look evil in the eyes of not only maintainers but also > fellow committers. That seems a fair theory. But IMHO wouldn't a pending DEPRECIATION have been a better plan? Just a thought. Thanks for the reply, Gleb. :) --Chris