Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:33:51 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: Bruce M Simpson <bms@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_var.h ip_output.c Message-ID: <86psdkq7ts.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <1159197357.67224.16.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> (Ken Smith's message of "Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:15:57 -0400") References: <200609251302.k8PD2wcG029663@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060925141624.GA99043@rambler-co.ru> <1159197357.67224.16.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> writes: > It helps a *little* bit if you folks only send in MFC requests after the > minimal 3-day wait period. Some people do that, which is great. But > others are in the habit of asking for the MFC approval immediately after > the initial commit expecting us to hold on to it and reply later. > Usually we manage to sort them out and do the right thing but that > second approach has a higher risk factor and not just the risk of a > premature approval (i.e. if you expect us to hold on to it we *might* > forget about it by the time it's appropriate for approval and it'll be > lost in the shuffle...). Don't take the blame for this! The fact that you responded quickly does not give the committer license to break the three-day rule. Common sense still applies... You re@ guys have work to do, you can't be expected to examine every MFC request in excruciating detail. You should be able to trust the requesting committer to do the right thing. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86psdkq7ts.fsf>