> On 14 Mar 2014, at 11:50, John Marino <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 3/14/2014 11:47, John Marino wrote: >>> On 3/14/2014 10:30, Philippe Audéoud wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, John Marino wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/14/2014 10:15, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> Port | Current version | New >>>>> version >>>>> ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ >>>>> games/doomsday | 1.12.2 | >>>>> 1.14.0-build1168 >>>>> ------------------------------------------------+-----------------+------------ >>>> >>>> This port squawks constantly. >>>> Can we either get the last submitter to take it over or put it on the >>>> to-be-killed list? Or tell portscout to ignore it? Too much noise on >>>> already high volume channel. >>>> >>>> John >>> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> games/doomsday is maintained by ports@. >> >> Right -- that's why portscout is bombarding the ports@ mail list. If it >> were maintained we wouldn't see it. >> >>> games/doomsday is maintained by ports@. Feel free to make it as ignored >>> for portscout. >> >> Is this the general understanding? Anytime any committer gets annoyed >> with high-frequency portscout squawks on ports@ we just disable it >> without asking? > > I thought I caught this before it went out. > I wanted to suggest that maybe portscout can not send any notice to > ports@ by rule if the port is unmaintained. > > what about that? > John
The Doomsday port is particularly bad, true. What about a lower frequency for those maintained by @ports (e.g. only first run of the month)? This way there's still a chance someone picks it up and updates it while we won't get spammed constantly. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
