On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:20:44PM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > It's also a good gesture to inform a maintainer of the port of the > planned changes ask for his/her agreement
True ... but in the cases like this which would require hundreds of approval emails, it's not very feasible. > Getting the mentor and portmgr@ approval is obviously not enough for > that kind of changes, there should've been a community consensus on > this first [...] (even portmgr@ is not authorized to make that kind > of changes unless they're fixing the broken thing). If you read the portmgr charter, we've been given a lot of leeway. core@ felt that when writing the document that "go fix it" outweighed many other considerations. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised that this change was controversial; to me, it seemed somewhat mechanical. For cases where functionality changes, I could see it. mcl _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
