John Marino wrote:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs. One user even proudly
> At the beginning of the thread, I used the gcc developer list as an
> actual example. If anyone posst an inappropriate topic to the list, it
> may get answered, but it will always get a "this is not appropriate for
> this list, please don't do it again, use the list for this next
> time."
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:30:09PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>>
>> I think train wreck applies more to sendmail than send-pr. Sendmail
>> dates back to long-ago pre-Internet days where computer users didn't
>> send email to other computer
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:30:09PM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
> I think train wreck applies more to sendmail than send-pr. Sendmail
> dates back to long-ago pre-Internet days where computer users didn't
> send email to other computer users. Now a computer user needs to be
> able to send thro
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:17:21AM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 10:32 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> > In other words, as a new user
> > I thought of sending a PR as
> > a last resort, because I doubted
> > myself a lot more than the
> > stability of FreeBSD and the
> > expertise of
On 21/12/2013 1:24 AM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 15:09, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>> I appreciate the distinction, and I agree with your premises. Setting a
>> high standard is not in question.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> If your aim however, is to change or influence others, and you'll grant
>> that no
On 12/20/2013 15:09, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> I appreciate the distinction, and I agree with your premises. Setting a
> high standard is not in question.
Thanks.
> If your aim however, is to change or influence others, and you'll grant
> that not everyone can know all there is to know about the val
On 21/12/2013 12:41 AM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 14:17, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am that user too. A
>> @FreeBSD.org email, commit bit and still a "new" user that doubts myself
>> sometimes and looks to the team for the right thing to do.
>>
>> If
On 12/20/2013 14:17, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am that user too. A
> @FreeBSD.org email, commit bit and still a "new" user that doubts myself
> sometimes and looks to the team for the right thing to do.
>
> If not for the encouragement of those in the project
On 20/12/2013 10:32 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> In other words, as a new user
> I thought of sending a PR as
> a last resort, because I doubted
> myself a lot more than the
> stability of FreeBSD and the
> expertise of the team.
> The actual tools to submit a PR
> were never an obstacle.
This.
>Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm
> unsubscribing
>From: clutton
>To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>> > >
>> > >From: "Thomas M
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 11:13 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> > >
> > >From: "Thomas Mueller"
> > >
> > >There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or
> > >what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> >
> > >From: "Thomas Mueller"
> >
> > >There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or
> > >what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly.
>
> > I disagree.
> > I use only send-pr to send PRs.
>
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 12:45 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> > Am 2013-12-17 23:33, schrieb John Marino:
> >
> >> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> >> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I'v
>Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:13:43 -0700
>From: Chad Perrin
>To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm
> unsubscribing
>
>On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> >
> >From: "Thomas Mueller"
> >
> >There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or
> >what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly.
>
> I disagree.
> I use only send-pr to send PRs.
> I use sendm
I wrote:
> In short: if the way this list is being used (at least by some,
> vis-a-vis the "dump an error log without as much as a hello")
Was supposed to be followed by
"bothers certain people here"
> I wouldn't mind if people were more encouraged to try the forums,
[snip]
Sorry for the omis
Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> If FreeBSD isn't going to enforce their own procedures and use of
>> infrastructure, I will limit my exposure to the continuing anarchy and
>> let "customer service" to those that agree that ports@ is a
>> free-for-all.
>
[snip]
> ports@ is a community that more people read
19.12.2013 23:35, John Marino пишет:
> I don't find the status quo personally acceptable, but I only have
> control of my actions, therefore "my threats" are the only recourse I
> have and thus they are appropriate.
May be you just ignore those emails? I don't think that there are
plenty of them.
On 12/19/2013 20:28, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> I didn't say I spoke for portmgr. I just don't see the big deal and it's
> odd that it's OK on 1 list but not another. It's anti-user to get mad at
> them for trying to get help or report it for others. Of course we prefer
> they use GNATS, but go look in
On 12/19/2013 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
>> their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
>> build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@
On 12/19/2013 20:07, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
> their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
> build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
> either. It tells everyone that "yes
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> I sincerely disagree and think it's quite rude to users to not accept
> their reports however they send them to us. current@ constantly has
> build failures on it, even automated. There's no reason ports@ shouldn't
> either. It tells everyo
On 12/17/2013 4:33 PM, John Marino wrote:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs.
On 19/12/13 22:09 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
> Rodrigo Osorio wrote:
>
> > On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> > > John Marino wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:46:41 +0100
Rodrigo Osorio wrote:
> On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> > John Marino wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/19/2013 06:54, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > > you got the point. We have to assume that a po
On 19/12/13 21:41 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> John Marino 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 po
On 12/19/2013 14:41, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
> John Marino 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 seve
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:04:10 +0100
John Marino 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 tha
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, the fault is on our side. Why shou
>From: "Thomas Mueller"
>To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm
> unsubscribing
>
>There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or what to
>quote, but I agree on send
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:46:58 +0100
David Demelier wrote:
> 2013/12/17 John Marino :
> > Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> > mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried
> > to discourage that behavior but other members of this mail
There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or what to
quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly.
One problem is setting up mail with outbound SMTP server: sendmail is too
mysterious/mystic to be useful.
I think most email clients set up to use POP3 and SMTP server
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM, William Grzybowski
wrote:
> Who will be taking the lead of this change so we
> can refer to?
bugmeister@ is always the contact address to use.
gonzo has been doing most of the technical work
I've been doing a lot of the workflow / administrative work. A lot of
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Lars Engels
> wrote:
> > Am 2013-12-17 23:33, schrieb John Marino:
> >
> >> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> >> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Lars Engels wrote:
> Am 2013-12-17 23:33, schrieb John Marino:
>
>> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
>> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
>> discourage that behavior but other members of this
Am 2013-12-17 23:33, schrieb John Marino:
Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
this method of bypassing writing PRs. One u
On 12/18/2013 13:12, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> John Marino :
>
>> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
>> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
First I want to address "hello". People have been interpreting this
literally, as in li
John Marino :
Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
Do the QAT reports bug you on this list? If they do not, why is that so?
I did not see you complain about those.
discourage that behavior
>Markiyan Kushnir :
>
>There's already ports-bugs@ for issues with ports (see the info on
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs).
>And this also would be the correct address for QAT reports, which
>are actually spamming the ports@ list (also imho).
>
>Personally, I do not th
Markiyan Kushnir :
It sounds like a need for a more grained structure of the
ports-related communication, just because the community is growing.
Very often there is a need to discuss one's issue in a list prior to
filing a PR. And yes, *discuss*, I agree with John, people should show
they want t
On mar, 17 dc 2013, John Marino wrote:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs. O
2013/12/17 John Marino :
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs. One user even pr
It sounds like a need for a more grained structure of the
ports-related communication, just because the community is growing.
Very often there is a need to discuss one's issue in a list prior to
filing a PR. And yes, *discuss*, I agree with John, people should show
they want to discuss their failed
On mar, 17 déc 2013, John Marino wrote:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs.
Am 17.12.2013 23:33, schrieb John Marino:
> Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
> mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
> discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
> this method of bypassing writing PRs.
Over the months I've seen several ports users copy a failure log and
mail it to ports@, usually without even saying "hello". I've tried to
discourage that behavior but other members of this mail list encourage
this method of bypassing writing PRs. One user even proudly boasted
that sending email
47 matches
Mail list logo
