From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 23:03:20 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256DD16A400 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:03:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zenture@argonath.homeunix.org) Received: from argonath.homeunix.org (239.Red-88-3-116.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [88.3.116.239]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6282913C46C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:03:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zenture@argonath.homeunix.org) Received: from localhost (amsterdam [10.0.0.3]) by argonath.homeunix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9D67303A for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:47:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 00:46:55 +0200 From: Fernando =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jim=E9nez?= Solano To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070620224655.GA6458@localdomain> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20070620151306.GM45993@therub.org> <20070620115023971992.49dc4616@kjsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070620115023971992.49dc4616@kjsl.com> X-Editor: Vim 7.1 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:03:20 -0000 On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Javier Henderson wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:06 -0500, Dan Rue wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: > >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486 > >> > >> This patch was supplied 2 years ago now. It doesn't change current/ > >> expected behavior but does allow those of us with many, many systems > >> to not get useless e-mail. > >> > >> It's not even my patch! I would simply like to see this done... > > > > I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when everything > > is OK? > > So if it's quiet, is it because it's OK, or because it's too broken to complain? If you want cronjobs to complain you just don't pipe them to /dev/null. Reporting that cronjobs setup not to write to stderr/stdout are not writing to stderr/stdout is plain nonsensical. Right now the only meaning of those emails is "mail delivery is working fine". -- How fortunate the man with none.