From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 25 21:06:27 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6DF16A468; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:06:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFBC413C457; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:06:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l7PL68HP021743; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:06:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:06:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Ken Smith In-Reply-To: <1188071752.1853.44.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: References: <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <20070825053302.GG99474@comp.chem.msu.su> <20070825.093925.43008968.imp@bsdimp.com> <1188071752.1853.44.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, alfred@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:06:27 -0000 On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote: > > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and > read them if you really want to... ] > > I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please. My reasons are: No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed an -arch or -current. Approval for committing still has to go through re@, but that doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be vetted elsewhere prior to being sent to re@ approval. -- DE