Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:05:45 -0700 (MST) From: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> To: mi@aldan.algebra.com (Mikhail Teterin) Cc: andrew@cream.org, kris@FreeBSD.ORG, olgeni@uli.it, ruslan@shevchenko.kiev.ua, seb@bluetail.com, ade@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nbm@mithrandr.moria.org, doc@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com Subject: Re: erlang port -- a poster child (Re: I'll be rolling a 4.1.1 r Message-ID: <200009210305.UAA03694@freeway.dcfinc.com> In-Reply-To: <200009201439.e8KEdli71369@aldan.algebra.com> from Mikhail Teterin at "Sep 20, 0 10:39:06 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As I recall, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Andrew Boothman once stated: > > =* If the PR is for a port make sure that "port update" is in the > =synopsis field, if only so that it catches Neil Blakey-Milner's regular > =check for such PR's, but also to act as a good description. > = > =* If you are the MAINTAINER of a piece of code (or more likely a port) > =and don't have commit privs, put "MAINTAINER update" in the synopsis, > =for the same reasons as before. > > Use of synopsis for this worries me. Perhaps, this warrants two > new classes: ``update'' and ``maintainer-update'' in addition to the > all-including ``change-request''? I too am a bit worried. Are we saying that one of the ports committers doesn't expect to do that job unless certain keywords are in the PR? If so, that should be documented other than in e-mail here. -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? chad@dcfinc.com chad@larsons.org larson1@home.net DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200009210305.UAA03694>