From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 11 10:07:55 2010
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id C40881065670; Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:07:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:07:55 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Remko Lodder <remko@elvandar.org>
Message-ID: <20100911100755.GC98291@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201009110907.o8B97h9o041593@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<2FE6FEAD-AEC7-47B3-BF09-7058908F3D42@elvandar.org>
	<20100911095133.GA98291@FreeBSD.org>
	<74745E4D-B9A7-4ABC-A13C-6D6B4ECC1130@elvandar.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <74745E4D-B9A7-4ABC-A13C-6D6B4ECC1130@elvandar.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/nvclock/files patch-src::Makefile.in
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree
	<cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:07:55 -0000

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:55:50AM +0200, Remko Lodder wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:33:20AM +0200, Remko Lodder wrote:
> >> We refer to this as
> >> 
> >> PR:	<category>/<number>
> > 
> > In most cases, yes, absolutely, but:
> > 
> > The committed patch was not from the PR; submitter suggested marking the
> > port as jobs-unsafe (and I hate marking ports unsafe or broken instead of
> > properly fixing them).  Technically, I could have omitted any attribution
> > whatsoever, but decided to do it nonetheless (making clear that commit
> > merely closes the PR, not taking any code/idea from it).  Thanks for
> > asking though.
> 
> no, when refering to a PR we always do that.
> 
> We can tell in the changelog itself that the PR had not been used itself.

Frankly speaking, I was reluctant to use non-canonical tag form, as much
as I hate doing it.  I spent about several minutes thinking of proper and
clear text for explanation of the role of the PR, but simple "make jobs
unsafeness report" just occurred to me this very moment.  :-(

Sorry I did not put enough thinking into it.

./danfe