Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:17:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> Cc: green@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/11121: w(1) cannot handle more than one user on command line Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907281708240.15263-100000@dt011n65.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <19990728195457.E318@mad>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 12:49:44PM -0700, Doug wrote:
> >
> > I thought that current best practice was to not close the PR until
> > it had been MFC'ed? Did that change sometime in the last 6 months or so?
>
> That's entirely up to the person who's handling the PR to decide.
Ok, thanks. The last time I remember this topic coming up my
impression was that there was an agreement to leave them open, but that
was "a while" ago.
> I never leave a PR open as an MFC reminder. There are too many open
> already.
Ok, how would you suggest that we implement a system where PR
fixes get MFC'ed on a more regular schedule? What we really want to avoid
is having things updated in the dreaded "super-commit" fashion that tends
to happen right before a -Release is cut. By MFC'ing in smaller bits over
a longer period of time things get tested better, -Release's are less
traumatic, and everyone is happier.
Any ideas?
Doug
--
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only
nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter
what it does.
-- Will Rogers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9907281708240.15263-100000>