From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 1 11:46:17 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 0548B1065670; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:46:16 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Gary Jennejohn Message-ID: <20090701114616.GA11164@FreeBSD.org> References: <200906301428.n5UESfiF022149@repoman.freebsd.org> <20090701073752.GA79351@FreeBSD.org> <20090701104451.GA1241@ponderosa.intelbras.com.br> <20090701133107.4d952dde@ernst.jennejohn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090701133107.4d952dde@ernst.jennejohn.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Marcelo Araujo , cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/lzip Makefile distinfo X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:46:17 -0000 Gary Jennejohn wrote: > Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > Why would maintainer need to explicitly approve their changes? > > > > It is very easy to answer, because he knows better than me if the new > > version is usable or not. The maintainer submitted an update to 1.6, and as > > we have a new release, I feel that was better ask the maintainer about that. Why would maintainer (or anyone, really) submit version that is unusable in the first place? > > > > Generally the maintainer knows better than us what is good or not for your > > ports. Of course everybody knows that. > > > > When the maintainer submits an update to one of his ports then he > rather obviously has also automatically approved the changes. > > I think that is what danfe was getting at. That's right. ./danfe