From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 12 00:16:43 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EBF16A4CE; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:16:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDA643D54; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:16:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.0.35.182] (g35-182.icann.org[192.0.35.182]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20050412001641011001d58ce>; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:16:41 +0000 Message-ID: <425B1368.4060903@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:16:40 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050326) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Nottebrock References: <425A32C8.30080.1710F6F5@localhost> <425AB7E0.2030101@FreeBSD.org> <425ACDFB.1080102@freebsd.org> <200504112221.40084.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <200504112221.40084.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/gzip Makefile ports/archivers/ucl Makefile ports/archivers/lzop Makefile ports/archivers/cabext X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:16:43 -0000 Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Monday, 11. April 2005 21:20, Doug Barton wrote: > >>Adam Weinberger wrote: >> >>>I believe emphatically that the sanity tests should be non-optional. >> >>And I believe emphatically the opposite. And your comment about the >>procmail filter is totally unsuitable for those who pay for their bandwidth >>by the byte. The more burdens you add to ports maintainers the fewer of >>them we will be able to attract. > > > Note that the automatic mails people are discussing here would be sent to the > *committer*, not the maintainer - and as a ports-committer, you pretty much > have opted in to receive (and read, too!) all sorts of mails regarding your > work when you accepted the commit bit. It's a punishment after all. Thank you for clarifying this. You've now given me yet another reason to not ever pick up and commit a PR for a new port. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection