On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-07 23:17:31 -0800: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > > > > The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or > > > maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four > > > months (2003/09/07-today), ports tree has been completely open > > > for whopping 28 days. > > > > That might be technically true, but it's misleading and doesn't > > support the point you're trying to make. During this period the ports > > collection has only been frozen for a couple of weeks, and the > > majority of commit activities were not restricted for the rest of the > > period in question. > > That might be technically true, but the precise semantics of > "(semi-)freeze" aren't as widely known as you seem to think. > E. g. yesterday or today I received an email from a committer in > response to my two mails to ports@ (the first urging a repocopy > requested in a PR some time ago, the other retracting the request > because of the freeze) saying (paraphrased) "to my surprise I was > told repocopies are allowed during freeze". Some people just prefer > to err on the safe side.
Repo-copies are not allowed during the freeze, but are any other time. > > > Porter's handbook, and FDP Primer, while valuable (esp. the former) > > > leave many questions unanswered. (I'm not going to further this > > > rant, but will gladly provide feedback to anyone who asks.) > > > > I would have thought the procedure to rectify this would be obvious: > > The procedure really is obvious, but there's only so much time in a > day. > > Also, I would have thought the Porter's handbook would e. g. contain > info on preventing installation of .la files (I gathered from the > ports@ list that they shouldn't be installed), isn't this lack quite > obvious? No, please raise this on the ports list. Kris
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
