Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:52:41 +0300 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org, eclipse@FreeBSD.org, ia64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Overlong mailing-list maintainer address in ports Message-ID: <21940630@bsam.ru> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420612231103v69d1780dlefb3d4c62ca10baa@mail.gmail.com> (Andrew Pantyukhin's message of "Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:03:06 %2B0300") References: <cb5206420612231103v69d1780dlefb3d4c62ca10baa@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:03:06 +0300 Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > It is by tradition that we use shorter unambiguous > mailing-list addresses as port's maintainers ad- > dresses. There are several ports with the following > long addresses in the collection: > freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org > freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org > freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.org > Please change them to their counterparts without > the "freebsd-" prefix, give me a go-ahead if you > want me to change them, leave this message unan- > swered if you don't care (I'll change them after a > time-out), or speak up if you have anything against > the change. Since I've seen many commits to GNATS last months to change those addresses to canonical names (freebsd-*), it seems to me that current policy is quite the opposite. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21940630>