Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:16:40 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/gzip Makefile ports/archivers/ucl Makefile ports/archivers/lzop Makefile ports/archivers/cabext Message-ID: <425B1368.4060903@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200504112221.40084.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <425A32C8.30080.1710F6F5@localhost> <425AB7E0.2030101@FreeBSD.org> <425ACDFB.1080102@freebsd.org> <200504112221.40084.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Monday, 11. April 2005 21:20, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>>Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>
>>>I believe emphatically that the sanity tests should be non-optional.
>>
>>And I believe emphatically the opposite. And your comment about the
>>procmail filter is totally unsuitable for those who pay for their bandwidth
>>by the byte. The more burdens you add to ports maintainers the fewer of
>>them we will be able to attract.
>
>
> Note that the automatic mails people are discussing here would be sent to the
> *committer*, not the maintainer - and as a ports-committer, you pretty much
> have opted in to receive (and read, too!) all sorts of mails regarding your
> work when you accepted the commit bit. It's a punishment after all.
Thank you for clarifying this. You've now given me yet another reason to not
ever pick up and commit a PR for a new port.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?425B1368.4060903>