Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:05:14 -0800 From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: make@ Message-ID: <3DD00D7A.A295ABB0@FreeBSD.org> References: <200211061401.gA6E18is052938@repoman.freebsd.org> <20021111180439.GA56914@dragon.nuxi.com> <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Juli Mallett wrote: > The idea is to have a maintainer (or a group of maintainers) whom are > very familiar with make(1)'s code, and which (as a group) is willing to > handle make(1) PRs, and so on. As architectural decisions are considered, > -arch should/would be consulted. That doesn't apply for the majority of > bugfixes. As make(1) maintainers, it's expected that changes will be > tested with due dilligence, which is easier with a make@, given the > ever increasing de facto requirement for testing changes to make(1), > and that when applicable, -audit would be consulted. Personally, I would much rather see such things handled on a public list all the time. I don't see anything in your description above that actually requires a seperate list. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DD00D7A.A295ABB0>