FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

[Michael Gmelin]

> On 14 Mar 2014, at 11:50, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/14/2014 11:47, John Marino wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2014 10:30, Philippe Audéoud wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, John Marino wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/14/2014 10:15, portscout at FreeBSD.org wrote:
>>>>> Port                                            | Current version | New version
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------
>>>>> games/doomsday                                  | 1.12.2          | 1.14.0-build1168
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------
>>>> 
>>>> This port squawks constantly.
>>>> Can we either get the last submitter to take it over or put it on the
>>>> to-be-killed list?  Or tell portscout to ignore it?  Too much noise on
>>>> already high volume channel.
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>> 
>>> Hello John,
>>> 
>>> games/doomsday is maintained by ports at .
>> 
>> Right -- that's why portscout is bombarding the ports@ mail list.  If it
>> were maintained we wouldn't see it.
>> 
>>> games/doomsday is maintained by ports at . Feel free to make it as ignored
>>> for portscout.
>> 
>> Is this the general understanding?  Anytime any committer gets annoyed
>> with high-frequency portscout squawks on ports@ we just disable it
>> without asking?
> 
> I thought I caught this before it went out.
> I wanted to suggest that maybe portscout can not send any notice to
> ports@ by rule if the port is unmaintained.
> 
> what about that?
> John

The Doomsday port is particularly bad, true. What about a lower frequency for those maintained by @ports (e.g. only first run of the month)? This way there's still a chance someone picks it up and updates it while we won't get spammed constantly.