If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

[Erich Dollansky]

Hi,

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
Rodrigo Osorio <rodrigo at bebik.net> wrote:

> On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> > John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > > you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not
> > > > marked broken has to work. 
> > > 
> > > I build the entire port tree several times a month.  I can tell
> > > you from experience that this assumption is not valid.
> > 
> > so, you want to say, that all the little problems which are solved
> > mainly by people who are not the maintainer should become PRs?
> 
> IMHO, it's the only way to reach quality in the port tree with a very
> accurate traceability.

you want to say i.e. all the e-mails regarding the switch to KMS
supported X should be PRs just because the writer did not read UPDATING
and the other sources? I think that this can easily handled here
without any PR.

Erich