On 12/19/2013 14:41, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100 > John Marino <freebsd.cont...@marino.st> wrote: > >> On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote: >>> you got the point. We have to assume that a port which is not marked >>> broken has to work. >> >> I build the entire port tree several times a month. I can tell you >> from experience that this assumption is not valid. > > so, you want to say, that all the little problems which are solved > mainly by people who are not the maintainer should become PRs?
Yes, that's the point. The GNATs system hold searchable information for others that care: A) A PR has already been filed B) A fix may already be proposed C) The state of the fix D) Whether the maintainer is delinquent. After a "timeout" (two weeks) other maintainers can take over any submitted fix. Without a PR, we don't know the port maintainer is delinquent, so we assume he/she is not. You have to submit the PR to start to two-week countdown. E) Many improvements come from people that are not maintainers. > The sender of an e-mail does not need the majority but a single > individual with the proper hint. For the reasons above, a PR is still better. The rest of us have visibility if we care, and the maintainer still gets an email from the GNATS system. John _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
