This would be a great thing to have. Can someone weigh in on the implementation?

IIUC, the nature of the origin exclusion prevents using CONFLICTS_INSTALL for flavored ports. This definitely sounds problematic to me. And if so, none of my vim ports will properly conflict. Can someone please take a look at this review? It seems like a problem worth fixing.

In D31487#710103, @1983-01-06_gmx.net wrote:

Question: Is this worth the effort given that 11.4 will be EOL in 1,5 months and all supported versions will have the root trust store installed by default?

In D31487#709659, @kevans wrote:

I have a complementary patch that also starts using USES=caroot on all consumers, but I'll need to rebase it

Maintainer resets do not require portmgr approval, but I’m happy to give it anyway. When you commit, please reword the approved by line so it doesn’t look like portmgr timed out.

In D29861#670188, @kevans wrote:

As @0mp pointed out, with a random patch from Bugzilla you would commit with git commit --author="Bob Snow <bob@snow.us>" to get the correct authorship recorded and you would be reflected on the "Commit" line (this requires --pretty=full to show). Going forward, we should be encouraging git show style patches so that you can just git am it and not worry about the metadata or commit message.

I may be misunderstanding the process you're describing, but it sounds to me like you're talking about a situation involving merging a pull request where the author is annotated. If the submission came from a BZ bug report, is the "Submitted by" field not still relevant?

In D29861#670168, @kevans wrote:

IMO if "Submitted by" gets restored, it should be noted that it's expected to be more of an anomaly than the norm -- reserved for situations where the original work was submitted by someone else, but changed substantially enough that the author should be updated.

Two thoughts here: