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

[Bryan Drewery]

On 12/19/2013 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
>> their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
>> build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
>> either. It tells everyone that "yes" there is a problem with this port
>> and "it's not just me".
> 
> 
> What can I say?  I think pasting an error log, and only an error log, is
> "quite rude".  But I'm also serious -- if this is the official response
> (and seeing that you are a member of portmgr, that makes it pretty close
> to official), then I'll follow through and simply unsubscribe from the
> list.  If FreeBSD isn't going to enforce their own procedures and use of
> infrastructure, I will limit my exposure to the continuing anarchy and
> let "customer service" to those that agree that ports@ is a free-for-all.
> 
> John
> 

I didn't say I spoke for portmgr. I just don't see the big deal and it's
odd that it's OK on 1 list but not another. It's anti-user to get mad at
them for trying to get help or report it for others. Of course we prefer
they use GNATS, but go look in there and you'll see it grows every day
upward. ports@ is a community that more people read than
freebsd-ports-bugs and are more likely to get help and discuss how they
fixed the issue. We are a mailing-list driven organization after all.

IMHO threatening to unsubscribe for users trying to get help is not
appropriate.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20131219/cf138dc0/attachment.sig>