Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:31:11 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/rubygem-pkg-config pkg-descr Message-ID: <20101015003111.GC34544@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <20101014153924.b290bd11.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <201010122319.o9CNJD1A046613@repoman.freebsd.org> <20101014131456.4d49bd3d.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20101014215117.GB34544@atarininja.org> <20101014153924.b290bd11.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 03:39:24PM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:51:17 -0400
> Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> mentioned:
>
> > In all honesty, your insistence on not using 'co-mentor' is the first
> > I've ever heard of it. I realize that doesn't make it right, but I think
> > my point that this is a silly debate still stands.
>
> But you didn't heard that you should use 'co-mentor' either?
Correct. I have no idea if 'co-mentor' is against some written rule
somewhere. What I do believe is that 'co-mentor' gets the point across
(it was approved by someone who is supposed to be approving the commit)
and it is not as absurd as the things you mention below.
> It was meant for consistency, so you can later do some automatic processing
> based on "(mentor)". I don't even know where this string came from: you
> probably can't find any references to "approved by co-mentor" neither in
> the committer's guide, or in porter's handbook.
Again, I agree with you here. I have no clue where the string came from
but it is not as ridiculous as this thread is starting to indicate.
> I just was surpised to receive no reaction on my first comment both from the
> committer and the mentor: the "co-mentor" nonsense has continued to be used.
> Maybe I just missed that, but I didn't heard that we allow each new mentor
> to invent his own string to put into parenthesis; if it's true, my I'll
> ask my next mentee to put something like "master" or "god" in place of
> "mentor", just because I like it better, or nobody told me that I shouldn't
> do that.
I would have an obvious objection to it because it is nowhere near
conveying the appropriate role in which you approved the commit.
I am starting to wonder why you have not complained about some of the
non-standard lines that I (and probably others) have put in commit logs
in the past. I know I've used 'Noticed by:' and 'Discussed with:' which
are not normally in commit logs.
Beyond being able to search for it, and thus why I think co-mentor is
acceptable because you can still easily grep for 'mentor', in commit
logs is to let others who read it know the specifics of the commit.
Having to adhere to a strict outline of what is and is not acceptable in
commit logs is absurd. We are all adults here and as long as the intent
of the message is clear and contains the appropriate string ('mentor'
and 'co-mentor' are acceptable in my book) I think arguing this point
any further is a waste of time.
-- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101015003111.GC34544>