svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ...

[John Marino]

On 3/27/2014 13:51, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:59:09PM +0100, Rusmir Dusko wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:16:02 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>>> E.g. I've set a few of my ports free (that is, relinquished control over to
>>> ports@) to let others do occasional updates or minor tweaks without having
>>> to wait for me to approve their changes.  It works well enough for simple
>>> ports that are hard to damage by careless committing which had sadly become
>>> quite popular recently.
>>
>> True when is Upstream alive and not Port have one maintainer, then is good
>> to have these Ports.
>>
>> Not all Ports must have one maintainer. Please not so simple deprecate good
>> Port.
> 
> Yes, my point exactly.  I know some people think (and they have their merit)
> that having 25K+ ports is unrealistic and quite a few of them are crap.  (I
> will probably elaborate more of this in reply to original thread from couple
> of weeks ago; still catching up with my email backlog, sorry.)
> 
> However, I do believe that we need to have a more formal set of rules when
> it comes to ports deprecation (and subsequent removal), esp. given how small
> is probation period now (typically one of two months).

why is short probation period a problem?
"svn revert" brings it right back if somebody cares enough to resurrect
it.  Most on probation have been either broken for months or untended
for years.  I'd bet 99% of these nobody hears a peep about when they are
gone.  For the remaining 1%: version control is there for them.
Resurrection is a sign the port is actually wanted.

John