From owner-cvs-ports  Thu Oct  5 19:17:51 1995
Return-Path: owner-cvs-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA04187
          for cvs-ports-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:17:51 -0700
Received: from forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.75])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA04179
          ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:17:34 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id TAA18882; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:19:42 -0700
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 19:19:42 -0700
Message-Id: <199510060219.TAA18882@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: ache@astral.msk.su
CC: ache@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org,
        cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <AnJ1-Sm4i2@ache.dialup.demos.ru>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/ncftp2/pkg COMMENT
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * It is neccessary in this case, this version merges some local FreeBSD hacks
 * and filename completion into official stream minimize potential
 * problems which can occurse.

I don't understand.  We had a perfectly functional 2.1.1 port, with
"local hacks".  What "potential problems" can occur by leaving it that
way?

I'll let this one go, but please keep changes to the minimum, okay?
You always seem to trample on other people's feet come release time,
and I'm frankly getting a little annoyed by that.

Satoshi