From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 15 15: 5:12 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4808F14F86 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:05:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40325>; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:02:53 +1000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:05:01 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: ports/13729: strip(1) exits with an error on script file - causes severe portability problems In-reply-to: To: chuckr@picnic.mat.net Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <99Sep16.080253est.40325@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:39:23 +1000, Chuck Robey wrote: (Judging by the headers, this item spent a couple fo days getting from Chuck to hub). >This kind of thing, where there is no bug ... where the subject is a >request for a new feature, isn't this kind of thing the wrong way for >folks to be using the trouble reporting system? I don't think so. send-pr(1) allows the following classes: >Class: <[ sw-bug | doc-bug | change-request ] (one line)> And we have no other tracking mechanism for users' change requests. There are frequent requests on the general mailing lists to send-pr things so they don't get lost. It also allows non-committers (such as myself) to formally submit new features. > It seems to me that allowing >such use of gnats makes it miserably hard for folks to close some PRs. I agree that mis-classifying feature requests as bugs (which Patrick has done) causes problems, but this should be handled via a mechanism to re-classify the PR. I don't see a problem with having a large number of `new feature requests' outstanding - as long as they can be identified as such. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message