Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:16:17 +0100 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> 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. Message-ID: <1104261378.48118.11.camel@hood.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <20041228211134.056bb9b3@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <200412281659.iBSGxciD076228@freefall.freebsd.org> <20041228211134.056bb9b3@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-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 <pav@FreeBSD.org> 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 <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1104261378.48118.11.camel>