From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 13 09:27:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3337C16A4D0; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:27:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C18943D5E; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:27:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 24D551470C; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:27:25 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:27:25 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: "Jonathan T. Sage" In-Reply-To: <400428DC.2060108@theatre.msu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:07:09 -0800 cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status reports - why not regularly? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:27:28 -0000 > so, what do you think? is this a good / bad start Good start. I think it indeed has a good intended audience, different from the bi-monthly reports. The only thing I would add to your report is to possibly suggest including ports "framework" changes (e.g. bsd.port.mk) because that might affect a wider community. Due to the QA cycle they are actually kind of rare, but can sometimes have the side-effect of creating a new "best practice" for ports (boy do I hate that term :-) ) mcl