Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 08:53:08 -0800 From: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable-12@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r344051 - in stable/12/sbin: newfs tunefs Message-ID: <F2429FD2-5BA8-4FE3-A1AA-AFC0EFE432B5@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201902121644.x1CGisIg070475@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201902121644.x1CGisIg070475@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Feb 12, 2019, at 08:44, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: ... > Agreed. No rules need to be changed. It's not a big deal. At the time=20 > the question was about, something was missed or someone did something=20 > that they didn't have authority to do. The question was answered a=20 > couple of hours ago. We can stop bikeshedding this to try to create=20 > more rules when none are required. It was a simple, who authorized this=20= > commit? We got our answer. Let's move on. I agree with others that=E2=80=94unless the process is automated and applied= automatically without one thinking about it=E2=80=94let=E2=80=99s not imple= ment yet another bit of unnecessary (to remember) process. Otherwise, I fear= the committer=E2=80=99s guide will become as complicated as US law. This was a simple mistake/omission. Let=E2=80=99s move on. Thank you, -Enji=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F2429FD2-5BA8-4FE3-A1AA-AFC0EFE432B5>