Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:12:40 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. Message-ID: <724F9C12-4A7D-451E-9811-674798FEDEA4@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20060112073449.GF84964@svcolo.com> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <43AB1E65.2030501@mac.com> <20051222221202.GM39174@svcolo.com> <200512231136.12471.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20060105092448.GH1358@svcolo.com> <20060105184147.GD69162@funkthat.com> <20060106110318.GF54324@svcolo.com> <86irsw1bwm.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060112073449.GF84964@svcolo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --Apple-Mail-5--156629124 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed I don't want to get embroiled in this conversation, but I am concerned about the use of GNATS illustrated here. On 12 Jan 2006, at 07:34, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:05:13PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > >> >> ports/76013 - patch committed after four months >> ports/76019 - superceded after a month > > One was committed, the other superceded. The first change only > works if > the latter is commited. Thus, the port remains broken and we keep > using > localized patches to fix it. Where does it say that in the PR? > The 'superceding port' is a different apache module that has different > limitations. There is no reason not to commit the latter and fix this > particular port, but I can't convince anyone to do that. I don't know that you tried. Why didn't you followup to the PR and ask for it to be reopened, or point out that there was a problem? >> ports/76724 - patch committed after a week >> docs/87445 - immediately adopted by a committer, being worked on > > I received no e-mail notification of either. My posts about said > bugs to > the appropriate mailing lists garnered no responses other than "put > in GNATS" We don't have mail logs back that far, so I can't see where that went wrong, but GNATS always send the submitter mail on a state change. You could always have looked at the PR. >> Oh, how we have wronged you! Please let us know how we may correct >> this grievous injustice! > > Nice sarcasm. Doesn't change that these were ignored, Except that we have shown that they were not, of course. Ceri --Apple-Mail-5--156629124 content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig content-description: This is a digitally signed message part content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDxjmome8yCsQvJJ0RArRHAJ93Q7v48fsmqHcfB37hDptV+S/bGACeLcDC VUsITVqTP+2qr9M9Wck7wvI= =oKit -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-5--156629124--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?724F9C12-4A7D-451E-9811-674798FEDEA4>