Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:23:14 +0100 (CET) From: "Julien Gabel" <jpeg@thilelli.net> To: pav@FreeBSD.org 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: <49497.192.168.1.19.1104261794.squirrel@192.168.1.19> In-Reply-To: <1104261378.48118.11.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <200412281659.iBSGxciD076228@freefall.freebsd.org> <20041228211134.056bb9b3@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <1104261378.48118.11.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> (Bottom line here is that you should approach maintainer directly, >>> without the detour via send-pr) >> 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. It is ok to act this way for me: i just thought it was the right way to do it this way, but it seems not to be the case. No problem with the proposed method. > And in last row, it creates a lot of administrative overhead for us, > committers. Sorry for the overhead. -- -jpeg.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49497.192.168.1.19.1104261794.squirrel>