cvs commit: ports/archivers/gzip Makefile ports/archivers/ucl
Makefile ports/archivers/lzop Makefile ports/archivers/cabext
kris at obsecurity.org
Mon Apr 11 17:58:42 PDT 2005
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:16:40PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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
> >>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.
If you're not willing to deal with followup emails requiring you to
fix the submission to work in other environments than the one you
tested, then yes, this is a good thing. That's part of your job.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20050411/4f8a7e17/attachment.bin
More information about the cvs-ports