Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:18:33 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <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 Message-ID: <20021111.221833.99697539.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org> References: <200211061401.gA6E18is052938@repoman.freebsd.org> <20021111180439.GA56914@dragon.nuxi.com> <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20021111112322.A4715@FreeBSD.org>
Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: * De: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> [ 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021111.221833.99697539.imp>