From owner-cvs-all Mon Nov 11 21:19:29 2002 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 4835437B401; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:19:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E88E43E9C; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:19:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAC5JQpk055949; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:19:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:18:33 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20021111.221833.99697539.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jmallett@FreeBSD.org Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src MAINTAINERS From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org> References: <200211061401.gA6E18is052938@repoman.freebsd.org> <20021111180439.GA56914@dragon.nuxi.com> <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 In message: <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org> Juli Mallett writes: : * 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. make@ is just alane and ru. That's too a small a group to be on that list. I don't think this is a good idea at all. Make shouldn't be changing that much. I've had no end of problems and subtle breakages when I upgrade from release to release for the makefiles that we have at work. I don't think that this is a good direction to go. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message