> On 7. Nov 2021, at 23:40, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <g...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 7 November 2021 at 20:27:01 +0100, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>>> On 7. Nov 2021, at 20:06, Dan Mahoney (Ports) <free...@gushi.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2021, at 7:04 AM, Daniel Engberg <dii...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>>> You're receiving this mail because you have one or more ports that
>>>>> are affected by the change proposed in
>>>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D32880 ...
>>>
>>> This caused me some headscratching (wait, is my port here but not
>>> in the list? Am I mailed because a port here is a dependency of my
>>> port?)
>>
>>> I???ve concluded that instead I???m receiving this mail because you
>>> sent it to the entire ports mailing list. Am I wrong?
>>
>> At least one of the affected ports is maintained by ports@ (=unmaintained).
>
> That makes it rather pointless to say "because you have one or more
> ports". Now *everybody* has to go through the list to find whether
> they're affected or not.
Not really, as I assume everyone maintaining these ports received a separate
email addressed to the address used in the MAINTAINER field. That’s consistent
with other emails received on ports@ (like update notices from portscout).
> It would have been better to exclude ports@
> from the list.
Or change the wording for that specific email, I was also slightly confused
and checked the list of affected ports, just to make sure - also as a consumer
of ports.
> But what I see is that really only ports@ was on the
> To: list.
>
Which makes sense, as those emails were sent to maintainers (one email per
maintainer). Again, that’s consistent with other communication to ports@, even
though in this case, some specific wording would’ve helped.
Just to be clear, I only explained what happened there, I didn’t send those
emails or was involved in any way.
-m
