From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Oct 17 13:57:09 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA07606
          for ports-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:57:09 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA07591
          ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:56:51 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA08730; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:54:09 -0700
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:54:09 -0700
Message-Id: <199510172054.NAA08730@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: ache@astral.msk.su
CC: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <glgv0Xmmu7@ache.dialup.demos.ru>
Subject: Re: Full FREEZE on ports tree
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

 * Just few words about my two latest bsd.port.mk commits:
 * one is pure bugfix and one is enhancement, no existen functionality
 * changes.

That's not the point.  If you commit something to enhance the
functionality, and modify a port to depend on it, you are forcing us
to pull the change into the 2.1 branch.

Or if you fix a "bug" in bsd.port.mk to fix a port, that will also
require the change to into the 2.1 branch.  I'd rather fix the port
Makefile (if the workaround is not too ugly) to make it work.

 * Each person treats "half stop" by his own manner.

You seem to have a much higher threshold than others. ;)

Satoshi