Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:21:01 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: "Stephen J. Roznowski" <sjr@home.net> Cc: hoek@hwcn.org, freebsd-ports@hub.freebsd.org, i.vaudrey@cableinet.co.uk, fports@jraynard.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: ports/4848: New Port to add! NASM Assembler Message-ID: <23789.878102461@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:36:31 EST." <199710290336.WAA06905@istari.home.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This is true. The few ports that I've committed from PRs have been > > done this way. If a port is too large to be included as a shar > > archive, it's probably also not done correctly. :-) > > Are you saying that those of us with new ports sitting in the queue > should resubmit them as shar files? Will that help to get them > processed? I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that, but it'd certainly be a good guideline for the future. For the current batch of "stale" ports, I guess the best thing to do would be for us to forc^H^H^H^Hvolunteer someone into the role of temporary janitor, their job being to look for ports submissions which are languishing in the PR database and are not also out of date, then sending these two lists to ports@freebsd.org (the first list being "close me" PRs and the second being "commit me, somebody!" PRs). That would be a good first step, methinks, to avoid having to have *all* the ports collection committers go through the same massive open PR list. Any suck^H^H^H^Hnice volunteers out there? :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23789.878102461>