Committing to a branch (e.g. 2016Q4) when the port in question has slave ports is getting tricky, especially if the port was added after the branch was created.
Case in point, www/linux-c7-flashplugin11 was added to the tree on 19 Oct 2016. The 2016Q4 branch was created on 3 Oct, and therefore that port does not exist on the branch at all.
Clearly, the slave port will not be on the branch.
As of the time of writing, there have been two MFH on the master port. Should the slave port be MFH as well? No.
No, because the slave port does not exist on the branch, and anyone following the branch will not be using that newly added slave port.
The issue for FreshPorts is knowing whether or not a given port is on the branch.
Background on branches
When FreshPorts sees a commit on a branch, the first thing it does is create that port on the branch if it does not already exist there. The copy is based on head and (glossing over all the gory details), the values are copied over verbatim. This is not entirely accurate, but it is close enough for this discussion. Technically, a copy occurs in the database which ensures the directory structure for the port exists on the branch. Because this is based on head, if any new files have been added to the port since the branch was taken, those same files will now exist on the branch. The values for the port (name, description, etc) will be based on extract via make -V performed on the ports tree after an svn up. Thus, the values displayed on the port page will reflect what is on the branch, and not what is in head.
The hypothetical solution
I think the only clean way for FreshPorts to know if the slave port exists on the branch is inspection of the local working copy of the repo after the svn up has completed. If it exists, the database entries for the slave port should be refreshed based on what is found in the repo. If it does not exist, no further action is required for that slave port.
This may be easy, or it may involve some rejigging of the code.