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

[Eitan Adler]

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Chad Perrin <code at apotheon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:30:09PM +0000, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>>
>> I think train wreck applies more to sendmail than send-pr.  Sendmail
>> dates back to long-ago pre-Internet days where computer users didn't
>> send email to other computer users.  Now a computer user needs to be
>> able to send through ISP's SMTP server.
>
> I think the fact one needs, by default, to have sendmail set up before
> one can use send-pr is a problem with send-pr as well.

[ bugmeister@ hat off ]

I think just about everyone doesn't like send-pr / GNATS.  We *are*
working to move towards bugzilla.  In fact I think a few test emails
may have leaked. ;)

The question is what to do in the meantime.  Merely sending the build
log an no additional context (revision of ports tree, what other ports
were being installed, etc.) is not useful either as a PR or as an
email.  In either case this forces the
maintainer/developer/contributor to email back and ask for more
details.  We *do* have documents explaining the needed information but
they are long and probably confusing.  A simple one paragraph "here is
the information we need when you send a bug report" is a good idea.

That said, assuming you are providing enough details, a PR is the most
helpful as it allows us at least some rudimentary level of tracking.
Emails shouldn't be ignored, but also shouldn't be the first resort
for bug reports either.