Status reports - why not regularly?

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 13:28, Jonathan T. Sage wrote:
> Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:19:11PM +0100, Josef El-Rayes wrote:
> > 
> >>"Jonathan T. Sage" <sagejona at theatre.msu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>1. a lot of the commits are going to be ports related, and 
> >>>therefore dropped immediatally.  this sort of report is handled 
> >>>wonderfully by dan @ freshports, i see no reason to duplicate 
> >>>what he has done
> >>
> >>why excluding ports? i think important changes in the ports area
> >>should be covered here too. 
> > 
> > 
> > As Jonathan said, the freshports is the best site where you can
> > get all issues about it.
> > 
> > -Kirill
> Exactally, and as Mark pointed out, I think that keeping in changes to 
> the ports infrastructure (bsd.ports.mk) would be an excellent idea.

And that's the plan.  As you can see from my recent email to ports@
about the bsd.gnome.mk changes, I will be updating ports@ and
ports-developers@ about ports infrastructure changes under my control. 
These will contain more detailed information than is found in the commit
logs.

Joe

> 
> ~j
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20040113/89c721d0/attachment.bin