Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 23:26:38 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> To: Ade Lovett <ade@lovett.com> Cc: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT access Message-ID: <20030411212638.GA24100@freebie.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <BABC9535.340F5%ade@lovett.com> References: <20030411194543.GA23351@freebie.xs4all.nl> <BABC9535.340F5%ade@lovett.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 03:52:21PM -0500, Ade Lovett wrote: > On 4/11/03 14:45, "Wilko Bulte" <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > Removing oneself from the various access* files has become a new > > fashion it appears. What do people think the gain is from doing this? > > Well, according to a Mister Grim Reaper, it takes up "valuable resources" of > varying forms. > > Of course, I immediately subscribed to the public cvs-src@ list, so as to > keep getting the src/ commits, so I'm not too sure what the overall point > was, other than to be a "good committer" -- I am assuming, of course, that > my src/ commit bit is just 'retired' by this action, and would be re-enabled > as and when appropriate. Well, the reason why I bring this up is that some folks email core that they want to hand in their commit bit for safekeeping whereas other folks just do a commit on access*. I don't mind either way, but I think it would be better to formally notify the hats (core, portmgr, doceng) that is responsible for handing out the bits. For the src commit bits I include this in the core report so that if need be there is a reference once the bit requested back. (sjeez, it starts to sound like a company out here.. :-} ) W/ -- | / o / /_ _ wilko@FreeBSD.org |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030411212638.GA24100>