From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 5 22:56:24 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2247DE; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:56:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (alchemy.franken.de [194.94.249.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6F58FC12; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/ALCHEMY.FRANKEN.DE) with ESMTP id qA5MuGNT061233; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:56:16 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: (from marius@localhost) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id qA5MuGqO061232; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:56:16 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from marius) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:56:16 +0100 From: Marius Strobl To: Dimitry Andric Subject: Re: svn commit: r242625 - in head/sys: dev/ale dev/ata dev/ata/chipsets dev/ath/ath_hal/ar5212 dev/bge dev/cas dev/dc dev/flash dev/fxp dev/gem dev/lge dev/mii dev/nge dev/pci dev/re dev/sis dev/ste de... Message-ID: <20121105225616.GC93413@alchemy.franken.de> References: <201211051916.qA5JGRDr064585@svn.freebsd.org> <5098416C.3040802@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5098416C.3040802@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:56:24 -0000 On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:45:00PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-11-05 23:36, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >I'm fine with the change, but why didn't you run this by the various > >driver owners first before doing a drive-by commit? > > The change was trivial, and did not cause any binary difference. I see > no reason to bother 20 different maintainers with something like this, > except bureaucratic ones... :) Except for ath(4), you caught all maintainers anyway (as far as there is one) :) Marius