svn commit: r371758 - in head/games/djgame2: . files

[John Marino]

On 10/31/2014 11:09, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * John Marino (freebsd.contact at marino.st) wrote:
> 
>>> I've already written in the PR: since you've submitted it, please
>>> provide additional info by checking whether the games works - it
>>> should be trivial. No, games@ is not obliged to do investigation
>>> instead of you. In fact, there's no games@ team as such.
>>
>> That is absolute bull****.
>> If a member of games@ revives a port under the games@ maintainership,
>> you bet that he and the entire games@ team is responsible for ensuring
>> the port is valid *BEFORE* resurrecting it.
> 
> Bull*** is your attitude.
> First, if you don't like what Rusmir did, discuss it with him. No,
> you won't blame games@ or me (as I take it personally) for it.
> Next, nobody is obliged to anyone while working on enthusiasm,
> especially not implicitely, based on what someone other did.
> Also, as far as I know, I'm the only one working on
> collectively/un-maintained games as of now, and I already have pretty
> much work to do.
> Finally, not related to what was said, usual problem report rules
> apply - if you see a problem, investigate it as much as you can before
> reporting.
> 
> You could just spend 5 minutes of your time to investigate that, but
> you're instead blaming others and making them do work for you. That's
> not how it works.
> 
> As a side note, if you think games@ is not supposed to work that way,
> I'm not against having it disbanded given other members do not object -
> while the team is useful for PR management, if it makes people think
> others are obliged to do work for them, or the false feeling that games@
> ports are well maintained (which is physically impossible given the ports
> number and games@ team size), I'm against having the team.


You have revealed a lot of issues.

If the MAINTAINER field is defined by anything other than
"ports at FreeBSD.org", then it is considered fully maintained.  I expect
from any maintainer that they confirm their port is usable and
specifically not rely on users to tell them that.  If games@ team is
unwilling to perform even the most basic of maintainer duties and are
instead limiting their efforts to fixing build problems, then I implore
games@ not to claim the port.  They can fix the port building just fine
when ports at FreeBSD.org owns the port.  Moreover, I've been reluctant to
make changes to games@ ports because I thought they were maintained.
>From what you've just said, I should consider *all* ports that list
MAINTAINER as "games at FreeBSD.org" equivalent to unmaintained and just
commit to them at will without consultation.

I am also vehemently against 1-man "teams" so if you are effectively
"games@" (which you imply saying you take it personally) then the team
should be disbanded based on that fact alone.

If games@ really only exists for PRs, then we can handle that in
bugzilla and just add a "games" flag or something.  Talk to mva about
that.  Claiming a port is maintained when it really isn't is a
disservice to all of us.  And this is not about "working for us", it's
about fulfilling the basic obligations of being a maintainer.

Finally, I 100% disagree with your view of the actual episode.
This port was fully deleted.  Rusmir had the obligation to make sure
that a resurrection was valid, *NOT* us.  That was *HIS* responsibility,
not ours.  This basically a case of somebody relying on others to clean
up his mess.  Not cool, and it's unfortunate that the rest of games@ had
to get pulled into it but that's something you have to take up with him.
 He represents your team.

Based on this, I think we are better off if games@ releases the ports
they are unwilling to properly maintain.  Leaving maintainer as
"ports at FreeBSD.org" is more useful and accurate for those ports.

John