cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributors contrib.committers.sgml contrib.develalumni.sgml

[Wilko Bulte]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:30:33PM +0100, Joel Dahl wrote..
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 20:12 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > On 2006-02-10 19:06, Joel Dahl <joel at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >> You can use common sense though.  He was obviously a ports committer.
> > > 
> > > Guys, I'm lost.  What are we arguing about?
> > > 
> > > He was a ports committer, but I fail to see how that is important since
> > > the Development Team Alumni doesn't differentiate between different
> > > types of commit bits?
> > > 
> > > Maybe I was a bit unclear with the meaning of the "unclassified commit
> > > bit" comment; it's just a reminder, since they're still in our access
> > > files.  :-)
> > 
> > No arguing from me.  I mentioned he was the ports-meister, just in
> > case the `unclassified' comment was meant to be a reminder of ``we
> > don't know what this guy was working on''.
> > 
> > It's obvious that the comment is not, since it only mentions names
> > listed in access.unclassified, so there's nothing to argue about.
> 
> Yep, everyone who is in access.unclassified has the "unclassified commit
> bit" comment next to their name in the SGML source, but I can understand
> if some people were confused by the "unclassified" discussion,
> especially if they believed that asami was the only one who had that
> comment next to his name.  :-)

All that said, I would think that as a matter of principle
access.unclassified should be an empty file.  

-- 
Wilko Bulte				wilko at FreeBSD.org