cvs commit: ports/games/ppracer Makefile pkg-descr

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:44:08PM +0200, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:55:20PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> >  On 6/15/07, Kirill Ponomarew <krion at voodoo.bawue.com> wrote:
> > > Andrew, please stop sending such kind of comments to
> > > ports-committers@ alias, in this case it really should be sent
> > > privately.  But, frankly speaking, even if I get it privately, I'd
> > > smile.  You should really *think* before you mail your comments to
> > > ports-committers list, these above comments are inappropriate here.
> > >
> > > Please move all you technical items for commits whether to ports@
> > > and discuss it there, or privately, depending how *important* is
> > > your comment.  Inserting the coins for every commit and do it in
> > > ports-committers@ is not what I expected while discussing technical
> > > review explanations.
> > 
> >  I'm the one who sends most messages, but this is not
> >  a one-man effort. Many people read them, some comment
> >  on them - and we all learn. And this is the point:
> >  making committers aware of the amount of problems in
> >  our commits, discussing them together. I'm not an
> >  automated process, we must all learn from each other's
> >  mistakes, broadcasted to a list, because we just don't
> >  have enough human resources for private lessons.
> 
> Sorry, but it's high level crap to discuss here stuff like Approved
> by: "pointyhat via kris", "pointyhat", "portsmon via linimon" or
> just "portsmon".  I don't want to see here the "yet another policy
> and discussion how to write Approved by: line", should I write pav@
> or just pav, "via" kris or just kris.  Andrew, I'm just repeating,
> these are crap comments and they shouldn't belong to
> ports-committers list.

Andrew is being perhaps overly pedantic here, but he's right in
principal.  Consistency and standard conformance even in format of
"Foobared by:" entries doesn't lower quality of our ports, does it?

> 
> >  As for the mailing-list, I think ports-committers is
> >  the most appropriate one because this is primarily an
> >  inter-committer process. 
> 
> You can't even really imagine how many users read ports-committers
> list just to know the changes in the ports tree.  They're not
> interested in the above notes.  So, please respect our users as well
> and don't think only about committers guys.

Kirill, those non-committers who read ports-committers@ are very likely
to consider being a submitter (or even committer!) in the future.  In
this case I find it useful if they learn most common mistakes *before*
they start making them themselves.  This is one of rare cases when one
can learn on others' mistakes as well (i.e., good) as on their own.

./danfe