The future of fortune(6)

[Julian H. Stacey]

Adrian Chadd wrote:
(top posting corrected here)

> On 24 November 2017 at 08:47, Julian H. Stacey <jhs at berklix.com> wrote:
> > fortune(6) is listed in ring bound 4.3BSD System Index.
> > Butchering on personal whim without prior agreement seems abuse.
> > BSD should be [temporarily] reverted & the commit bit suspended,
> > pending commiters' peer review of an un-authorised deletion.
> > Then decide what what to do with fortune.

> hi,
> Pardon me, but it's 2017 and the 4.3BSD system index isn't an immutable bible.
> As a general push to packaging things in general, turning fortune into
> a package seems like some low hanging fruit.
> -adrian

I avoided expressing opinion on where fortune might best be, to
avoid distraction from the point:

Commit bits are a privilege.  Contentious commits forced through
before discussion, should by policy be automaticaly reverted,
& committers bit suspended, pending committer peer review - Not with
reference to the desirability or otherwise of a commit, but for
imposing on FreeBSD without prior discussion.

Commiter conduct reviews should be seperate from 
discussion of desirability of a contentious commit.

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian H. Stacey, Computer Consultant, BSD Linux Unix Systems Engineer, Munich
 Reply below, Prefix '> '. Plain text, No .doc, base64, HTML, quoted-printable.
 http://berklix.eu/brexit/ UK stole 3,500,000 votes; 700,000 from Brits in EU.