Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:55:45 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <sat@FreeBSD.org> To: "Alexander Botero-Lowry" <alexbl@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/eyeos Makefile distinfo pkg-plist Message-ID: <cb5206420612191555i6b32be6avb910e8c65925418d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20061219232850.BF91B3A5BF@cherenkov.geekfire.com> References: <200612192119.kBJLJ6vE038989@repoman.freebsd.org> <20061219232850.BF91B3A5BF@cherenkov.geekfire.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/20/06, Alexander Botero-Lowry <alexbl@freebsd.org> wrote: > > sat 2006-12-19 21:19:05 UTC > > > > FreeBSD ports repository > > > > Modified files: > > www/eyeos Makefile distinfo pkg-plist > > Log: > > - Update to 0.9.3-5.wink.at.nivit.;) > > Approved by: nivit ? > > When committing to another person's port that you're not the maintainer > of, you need to put approved by, even if the approval is implicit. That's > what (implicit) is for. This makes no sense at all. My mission is to confuse people, not enlighten them. Hmm, maybe it's time to devise something more elaborate, like Re-approved by: ports@ (ex-maintainer, placeholder; timeout - SNR too low) Of course it would draw more attention, but at least suggestions will be more complex. Or maybe I should try to apply the theory behind one of the latest eurobsdcon talks [1] to ports. Or should I just stop reading all the feedback to my ever so rare commits and rather expect something in the spirit of "he had it coming" when I annoy people enough for them to give me some metal. Anyways, to me sleep is of top priority right now, so good night, I wish you all to learn to stop worrying and love... something... [1] http://2006.eurobsdcon.org/talks-stockebrand.php
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420612191555i6b32be6avb910e8c65925418d>