From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 28 19:57:51 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 CCCB116A4CF for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:57:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.rdsnet.ro (smtp.rdsnet.ro [62.231.74.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD2243D31 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:57:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from itetcu@people.tecnik93.com) Received: (qmail 11020 invoked by uid 89); 28 Dec 2004 20:04:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO it.buh.tecnik93.com) (81.196.204.98) by 0 with SMTP; 28 Dec 2004 20:04:40 -0000 Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (localhost.buh.tecnik93.com [127.0.0.1]) by it.buh.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294BC1187D; Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:57:49 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:57:48 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: pav@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20041228215748.67ad5cc7@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <1104262475.48118.17.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <200412281659.iBSGxciD076228@freefall.freebsd.org> <20041228211134.056bb9b3@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <1104261378.48118.11.camel@hood.oook.cz> <20041228213109.6ed4e952@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <1104262475.48118.17.camel@hood.oook.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.13 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:57:52 -0000 On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:34:35 +0100 Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Ion-Mihai Tetcu p=ED=B9e v =FAt 28. 12. 2004 v 21:31 +0200: >=20 > > > Second, I fear that those PRs would be forgotten in analyzed state on= ce > > > the port is updated and the matter settled. So I rather closed them. > >=20 > > I try not to forget to say about the PRs that should be closed when my > > PRs supersede them. >=20 > Fair, I should have been more involved and track these PRs instead of > closing them. My apology. C'mon. You do more that enough work. If I have to use my agenda or my company bug handling system to gain you a few minutes, that I will do. Maybe someday, somehow I would have had (sorry, English verb times are still something I can't master no mater what I try :-( ) contributed enough to be a committer and then I could take acre of my own PRs, at least :) But why my aspell doesn't like the word 'committer' ? :)) > > > > > (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. > > >=20 > > > Always, always, always, when there is an active maintainer around, > > > direct contact with a maintainer is strongly preferred. > > >=20 > > > It's really an ugly habit to send-pr patch and Cc maintainer. > >=20 > > Better that send pr and not cc the maintainer, anyway. >=20 > Yes that's worst variant. >=20 > > > 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. > >=20 > > I think the problem is that the subj, must begin with > > FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org or else it becomes a 'misfiled' reply. ^^^^^^^ I meant the 'to:' > > Only cc'ing seems not to be enough. >=20 > The trick is to leave Re: ports/XXXXX: at the beginning of the subject. Only ? I don't think I alter the subj.Anyway next time I'll make sure. --=20 IOnut Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"