From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 25 15:34:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE12816A531; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:34:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE0643DAA; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:33:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817032094; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:33:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on tim.des.no Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B03208D; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:33:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E9187B80E; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:33:51 +0200 (CEST) From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Ken Smith References: <200609251302.k8PD2wcG029663@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060925141624.GA99043@rambler-co.ru> <1159197357.67224.16.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:33:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1159197357.67224.16.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> (Ken Smith's message of "Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:15:57 -0400") Message-ID: <86psdkq7ts.fsf@dwp.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bruce M Simpson , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Ruslan Ermilov , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_var.h ip_output.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:34:01 -0000 Ken Smith 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