docs/80681: articles/problem-reports: don't tell people they should sumbit a PR each time they see an outdated port

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Sat, 7 May 2005 15:10:12 +0800 (WST)
David Adam <zanchey at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

> > > Why not just "If you are reporting a new version of a port, try to contact
> > > the port's maintainer first."?
> >
> > So that I don't see PR but post on ports@ ? Well, it will be an
> > improvement, at least no one will have to close them.
> 
> I have two primary problems with the proposed patch
> - It's poorly written. This can be fixed.

I hereby promise not to write any PR after 12p.m. localtime :)

> - The general message that it gives is not one I think is beneficial. We
> should be trying to remove barriers for people to report problems, not
> institute them.

You're somehow right here.

> I can understand that you want to reduce the amount of waffle in the PR
> database, but I think your proposed change is too complicated and too
> negative.
> 
> Now, I am not a committer nor subscribed to ports@, but surely hitting the
> Delete key once or twice a week more often is not that huge a price to
> pay?

I remember having a discussion about this subject some time ago with
pav@ (cc'ed).

The only reason for "outdated announce" PR is that maybe someday someone
other that a commiter (as a commiter is busy enough) will start looking
in the PR database for something to do; now we all know how interested
is the mythical Someone to do just that. IMO the practical value of this
PR equals zero (even less since they generate supplementary work for the
commiters - and the typical wait time for a non-commiter maintainer
update is about a week this days).

Now if the port is maintained, to have a PR announcing you there's a new
version is usually frustrating: you know there's a new version, you
probably have worked with the developer on it, you're probably testing
to see there's no regression, etc. So this kind of PRs do the same good
as a simple email (which can be useful if you maintain a large number of
ports or for the ports that are updated rarely - I use a monthly cron
job to remind me of them).


> I propose that this patch be shortened to:
> 
> --- article.sgml.orig   2005-01-15 10:16:42.000000000 +0800
> +++ article.sgml        2005-05-07 15:07:06.622424000 +0800
> @@ -106,7 +106,8 @@
>         <para>Notification of updates to externally maintained
>           software (mainly ports, but also externally maintained base
>           system components such as BIND or various GNU
> -         utilities).</para>
> +         utilities). If you are reporting a new version of a
> +         port, try contacting the port's maintainer first.</para>
>        </listitem>
>      </itemizedlist>

At least this could be committed.


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"