# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-07 23:17:31 -0800:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>
> > The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or
> > maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four
> > months (2003/09/07-today), ports tree has been completely open
> > for whopping 28 days.
>
> That might be technically true, but it's misleading and doesn't
> support the point you're trying to make. During this period the ports
> collection has only been frozen for a couple of weeks, and the
> majority of commit activities were not restricted for the rest of the
> period in question.
That might be technically true, but the precise semantics of
"(semi-)freeze" aren't as widely known as you seem to think.
E. g. yesterday or today I received an email from a committer in
response to my two mails to ports@ (the first urging a repocopy
requested in a PR some time ago, the other retracting the request
because of the freeze) saying (paraphrased) "to my surprise I was
told repocopies are allowed during freeze". Some people just prefer
to err on the safe side.
> > Porter's handbook, and FDP Primer, while valuable (esp. the former)
> > leave many questions unanswered. (I'm not going to further this
> > rant, but will gladly provide feedback to anyone who asks.)
>
> I would have thought the procedure to rectify this would be obvious:
The procedure really is obvious, but there's only so much time in a
day.
Also, I would have thought the Porter's handbook would e. g. contain
info on preventing installation of .la files (I gathered from the
ports@ list that they shouldn't be installed), isn't this lack quite
obvious?
--
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message. see http://www.eyrie.org./~eagle/faqs/questions.html
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
