[Bug 193453] [STAGE] ports-mgmt/prhistory: Enable STAGE support, Take Maintainership

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193453

--- Comment #8 from C Hutchinson <portmaster at bsdforge.com> ---
(In reply to John Marino from comment #7)
> (In reply to C Hutchinson from comment #6)
> > Well, yes. Sure. I understand (some|many) may feel it's [shall we say]
> > less-than-desirable. But I think it can be improved, and yes, I think
> > the time to do it, is worth it. :)
> > I don't know that bugzilla is necessarily the best-thing-since-sliced-bread,
> > either. They both have their pluses, and minuses. Kinda' like the argument
> > over SVN-v-CVS | FreeBSD-v-Linux -- depends upon who you're talking to.
> > No? :)
> 
> I actually don't think those are comparable.
> GNATS has a bunch of fundamental issues due to when it was designed.  And
> some of those design issues can't be blamed on "back then everything was on
> one system and we all trusted each other".  For example, the decision to let
> the submitter decide the criticality level of their own PR is asinine. 
> Everything thinks their little problem is the near the end of the world and
> that everyone cares (ofc, the rest of us think it's trivial at best).
> 
> I honestly don't think anybody (except maybe you) would start a new GNATS
> system.  Not with the current design, and not with improvements added.  You
> could literally be only consumer of gnats4 with a possible exception of
> somebody that wants to archive the FreeBSD database (not to use, but only
> for archival purposes).
> 
> 
> > As to better being a "new port". I guess I don't have a real issue with
> > that. It just seemed trivial to make it generic enough to work with [any]
> > gnats4. So I thought it worth keeping it in the tree. With the intention
> > of making it use _any_ gnats4 bug||database. In the _very_ near future.
> > While also adding support for the [current] (bugzilla) pr(1), used now.
> 
> I don't see why somebody that wanted bugzilla wouldn't just open a browser. 
> These PRs must be nearly unreadable in a straight text form.
> 
> 
> > In the end. I'll let you decide. My life won't come to an end, which ever
> > choice you make. ;) I can re-introduce it, if need be.
> 
> I vote to let this port die.
> If you do succeed in modifying the source to make it generic and you find
> out that there's a demand for it (other than yourself) then we can bring it
> back pretty easily.  I don't want to bring it back on a promise that it will
> be fixed later.  Fix it first, that's my feeling.

Sure. OK. If I've learned anything, through all this. I've learned _not_
to argue with you. ;)
Seriously. You bring up very good points. I have more work to do, on
both gnats4, and prhistory. I see no [real] reason to _insist_ this be
kept in the tree, _today_. When I can easily add it, when it's [actually]
completed, _as_ intended.

Thanks for all the time, and input, you've put into this, John.
I _really_ appreciate it. :)

--Chris

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.