From owner-cvs-all Mon Nov 11 11:23:24 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id C5FBE37B401; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:23:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:23:22 -0800 From: Juli Mallett To: David O'Brien , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src MAINTAINERS Message-ID: <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org> References: <200211061401.gA6E18is052938@repoman.freebsd.org> <20021111180439.GA56914@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20021111180439.GA56914@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 10:04:39AM -0800 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * De: David O'Brien [ Data: 2002-11-11 ] [ Subjecte: Re: cvs commit: src MAINTAINERS ] > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:01:08AM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote: > > . MAINTAINERS > > Log: > > Add a MAINTAINERS entry for make(1), to the make@ alias, which anyone > > can use to run patches to make(1) by. > ... > > Currently it points to two people who have demonstrated > > maintainership (ru@ and myself) and one person interested in helping > > (alane@). > > Many of us have committed to make(1) over this projects lifetime. > > Why is make(1) so special it needs its own list? This is getting > ridiculous. Make(1) is in *all* of our hands. Please back this out and > just use our normal arch@ and audit@ lists. The idea is to have a maintainer (or a group of maintainers) whom are very familiar with make(1)'s code, and which (as a group) is willing to handle make(1) PRs, and so on. As architectural decisions are considered, -arch should/would be consulted. That doesn't apply for the majority of bugfixes. As make(1) maintainers, it's expected that changes will be tested with due dilligence, which is easier with a make@, given the ever increasing de facto requirement for testing changes to make(1), and that when applicable, -audit would be consulted. -- Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org http://people.FreeBSD.org/~jmallett/ | Support my FreeBSD hacking! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message