[HEADSUP] New mailing pkg-fallout

[Andrea Venturoli]

On 07/18/13 10:04, Erwin Lansing wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:14:39PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>> The volume unsustainable.
>
> You bet it is!  Know you know what portmgr has been spending its time on
> for all those years and why we keep sining the same old song about
> quality control and pre-commit (and not post-commit testing waiting for
> a "krismail" from me, Martin, or other portmgr members) testing.  If you
> feel the volume is to big, here's your change to make a difference!

Hello Erwin.

I subscribed to that list because I maintain a couple of ports.
They are small, not so important ports, I don't think I deserve any 
medal, but that's what I can do. Perhaps in the future I'll have more 
time and skills to spare, but that's how it is now.
I subscribed to that list exactly because I hope my ports don't show 
unexpected problems. I thought this would be a good idea, because I 
thought it would help me achieve this goal.
Unfortunately, it does not: it does not save me time and efforts, but, 
on the contrary, it's been hindering me (by wasting time and resources).

We are not discussing the goal, only the tools.

If I get a mail regarding a port I maintain, I'll happily try and find 
some time to look into it. If I have to wade through gobs of mail which 
means very little to me, already a share of my time may be gone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that list should be deleted; if it is 
useful to someone, fine, let them go for it.
In my case, if I'll get more targeted mails, I'd have a bigger chance to 
look into them.

Again, just my 2c.

  bye & Thanks
	av.