Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:21:25 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@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 Message-ID: <200504112221.40084.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <425ACDFB.1080102@freebsd.org> References: <425A32C8.30080.1710F6F5@localhost> <425AB7E0.2030101@FreeBSD.org> <425ACDFB.1080102@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] 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. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCWtxUXhc68WspdLARAgk3AJ9iy3y+3o9y/oGdFEy397EI35oo7QCghwDz 3DE/6tbioclDzEjaA1+774Q= =/zYa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504112221.40084.michaelnottebrock>