From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 28 19:16:23 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B165316A4CE for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:16:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hood.oook.cz (hood.oook.cz [212.27.205.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3C343D2D for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:16:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from hood.oook.cz (localhost.oook.cz [127.0.0.1]) by hood.oook.cz (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBSJGKLl000227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:16:20 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from pav@localhost) by hood.oook.cz (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iBSJGJ5Y000226; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:16:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: hood.oook.cz: pav set sender to pav@FreeBSD.org using -f From: Pav Lucistnik To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu In-Reply-To: <20041228211134.056bb9b3@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <200412281659.iBSGxciD076228@freefall.freebsd.org> <20041228211134.056bb9b3@it.buh.tecnik93.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-pc36FDKRX9ddLmogIIJ7" Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:16:17 +0100 Message-Id: <1104261378.48118.11.camel@hood.oook.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port cc: jpeg@thilelli.net cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/75551: [PATCH] Correct a 'post-patch' entry in the port's Makefile since a files/patch-* seems to do the same thing. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: pav@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:16:23 -0000 --=-pc36FDKRX9ddLmogIIJ7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ion-Mihai Tetcu p=ED=B9e v =FAt 28. 12. 2004 v 21:11 +0200: > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:59:38 GMT > Pav Lucistnik wrote: >=20 > > Synopsis: [PATCH] Correct a 'post-patch' entry in the port's Makefile s= ince a files/patch-* seems to do the same thing. > >=20 > > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > > State-Changed-By: pav > > State-Changed-When: Tue Dec 28 16:59:05 GMT 2004 > > State-Changed-Why:=20 > > Maintainer promised to integrate this patch into his next update. >=20 > Pav, why is the state "close" more appropriate that analyzed ? > I mean I could forget about them ;) First, I trust you that you will not forget about them. Second, I fear that those PRs would be forgotten in analyzed state once the port is updated and the matter settled. So I rather closed them. > > (Bottom line here is that you should approach maintainer directly, > > without the detour via send-pr) >=20 > For two stylistic ones yes, but for the dir permissions (75549) and > "UntrustedDeliveryAgent" and "QuarantineAgent (75548), I tend to > believe a pr is OK. Always, always, always, when there is an active maintainer around, direct contact with a maintainer is strongly preferred. It's really an ugly habit to send-pr patch and Cc maintainer. First, a lot of maintainers don't know how to act properly on such emails, they just don't Cc their replies back to GNATS. And in last row, it creates a lot of administrative overhead for us, committers. --=20 Pav Lucistnik You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you. --=-pc36FDKRX9ddLmogIIJ7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Toto je =?iso-8859-2?Q?digit=E1ln=EC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_=E8=E1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBB0bEAntdYP8FOsoIRAjZuAJ9sl90c+6cLHLfNOB8wmmCTesUCiwCfeHpM ux0m2QuKuvERCjxLhcuqXRI= =qp7r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-pc36FDKRX9ddLmogIIJ7--