https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=291316
--- Comment #63 from Matthias Andree <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Charlie Li from comments #59...#63) That's pretty bold to state it was unapproved or unauthorized or whatever (in comment #61) when a prior version had already been approved and then later refined, after justified criticism that the update should not obliterate the documentation, with the formal maintainers not delivering on the documentation for weeks on end. There was NO mention of what would have been broken technically by the bits I'd committed. I asked several times, no mention. What I committed in https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=099bd713e09ebdd02d73fde770c50706f980404f kept the entry point libxml2 that installed documentation and binaries, it kept dependencies of all ports I tested working in my 2000+ ports test build, we fixed xmlsec1 (*) that was a blocker to many downstream ports, but except "not invented here, by vishwin@" no technical issue was mentioned. Then my good solution got reverted, and replaced by an inferior and more costly approach: One that raises technical debt, that bears the risk of delaying future updates (that are already slow) even more, or risks getting them incomplete, in that it burdens libxml2 maintainers with a manual build of documentation prior to commit. This all in a situation where the current maintainer role failed to deliver the update in over three months - although it had always been known to fix vulnerabilities not only in the port itself but also one of the companion downstream ports, libxslt. NB: I am not saying that being overloaded is bad in a volunteer-driven project, but I will say that increasing the maintenance burden on an already overloaded role is a bad decision. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
