From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 24 14:03:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FBC16A4CE for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:03:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1412443D31 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:03:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au [127.0.0.1])i0OM3Ve3013652 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:03:31 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au) Received: (from jeremyp@localhost) by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0OM3UAW013651 for current@freebsd.org; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:03:31 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from jeremyp) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:03:30 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040124220330.GK908@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <20040124070846.GA595@omoikane.mb.skyweb.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040124070846.GA595@omoikane.mb.skyweb.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: RFC: Weekly status update 17/01/04-23/01/04 (cvs-src summary) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:03:33 -0000 On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:08:46AM -0600, Mark Johnston wrote: >- Subject matter - too narrow? too broad? should I cover the -current > list instead of cvs-src, or try to combine both into one report? It would be nice to see a -current summary but I think it should be a separate report and I'd be a bit concerned about burnout if you tried to do both yourself. I'd start by producing the cvs-src report only for a few months and see how things turn out. >- Prose - too technical? not technical enough? too flowery? too plain? Good - just right. > >- Commits covered - Did I miss anything I should have included, or > include things I should have skipped? I don't recall seeing any commits that should have been mentioned but weren't and didn't see anything in the report that I felt should have been left out. >- Impartial? I've tried not to attribute consensus and opinions where > they weren't very clear; have I succeeded? I think the report was impartial >- Interest - would you be interested in seeing something like this > produced weekly? Definitely. I think the report is an excellent idea. Peter