From owner-freebsd-bugs Sat May 23 12:32:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA12294 for freebsd-bugs-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 12:32:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from heron.doc.ic.ac.uk (BwVME+0xErxoXC8kiaZMFqd5nxplnuVw@heron.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.46.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA12227 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 12:31:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk) Received: from oak66.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.33.66] ([nYDXfhKlvedafRoD1AmWvHuYuhfquaQ9]) by heron.doc.ic.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.62 #3) id 0ydK15-0001BW-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 20:31:39 +0100 Received: from njs3 by oak66.doc.ic.ac.uk with local (Exim 1.62 #3) id 0ydK14-0003Uf-00; Sat, 23 May 1998 20:31:38 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 20:31:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp "Re: Problem reports closed by Poul-Henning Kamp [was: Re: misc/6712]" (May 23, 9:05pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Poul-Henning Kamp , Studded Subject: Re: Problem reports closed by Poul-Henning Kamp [was: Re: misc/6712] Cc: ac199@hwcn.org, Ruslan Ermilov , Niall Smart , nick@foobar.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On May 23, 9:05pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: } Subject: Re: Problem reports closed by Poul-Henning Kamp [was: Re: misc/67 > In message <35671CD4.7DA01D1@san.rr.com>, Studded writes: > >> > > I think the commentary is more along the lines of there being a problem > >with a PR being closed at all just because it's fixed in -Current. I > >have suggested that there be a new state for PR's that have been fixed > >in -Current and awaiting a commit to -Stable. > > Only if a crew of dedicated committers, commit themselves to keeping > this new state empty on a continuing basis does this proposal have > any merit. I have a better suggestion: don't commit fixes to either -stable or -current unless you are prepared to commit to both. Obviously this rule isn't universal, there are bugs which are release specific, or which would involve a possible destablisation of the -stable tree to properly fix, in these cases the decision has to be made after due consideration, but as a general rule of thumb, I think it makes a lot of sense. As a -stable user its very annoying to spend a couple of hours chasing down a problem and writing a patch only to see it disappear into -current and then to have to chase a committer for days until it applied to -stable. And it's especially annoying when the patch is just a quick job which takes a fraction of the time to apply as it did for me to find and fix. Regards, Niall To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message