Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:42:39 -0400 From: Michael Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> To: "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/bash1/files patch-af patch-am patch-an patch-ao patch-ap patch-aq patch-ar patch-as patch-at patch-builtins-common.c patch-builtins-common.h patch-error.c patch-error.h patch-print_cmd.c patch-readline-display.c ... Message-ID: <20030831224239.GA49662@wombat.localnet> In-Reply-To: <200308310808.h7V88mIT023746@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200308310808.h7V88mIT023746@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * David E. O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> [030831 04:06]: > obrien 2003/08/31 01:08:48 PDT > Log: > Fix build on -current (varargs -> stdarg) > [don't propagate the poorly named patch files from the PR] As the submitter of the PR I'd like to apologize for the poorly named patch files. I was just following the example of all the existing patch files in most of the ports I'd fixed over the weekend. =20 Is is preferred not to name patches patch-aa? And if so why are there so many of those in the ports tree already? Just wanted to know before I go do any more of these. --Mike --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/UnneCczNhKRsh48RAiOjAJ4oXYVpQliKfAg1vZSxUNbMV0vPiQCfZvge Sj9N2P6dAWM5rVDQWFNqXOk= =+p5w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Dxnq1zWXvFF0Q93v--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030831224239.GA49662>