ports/75551: [PATCH] Correct a 'post-patch' entry in the port's Makefile since a files/patch-* seems to do the same thing.

Pav Lucistnik pav at FreeBSD.org
Tue Dec 28 19:16:23 UTC 2004


Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v út 28. 12. 2004 v 21:11 +0200:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:59:38 GMT
> Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> > Synopsis: [PATCH] Correct a 'post-patch' entry in the port's Makefile since a files/patch-* seems to do the same thing.
> > 
> > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
> > State-Changed-By: pav
> > State-Changed-When: Tue Dec 28 16:59:05 GMT 2004
> > State-Changed-Why: 
> > Maintainer promised to integrate this patch into his next update.
> 
> Pav, why is the state "close" more appropriate that analyzed ?
> I mean I could forget about them ;)

First, I trust you that you will not forget about them.

Second, I fear that those PRs would be forgotten in analyzed state once
the port is updated and the matter settled. So I rather closed them.

> > (Bottom line here is that you should approach maintainer directly,
> > without the detour via send-pr)
> 
> For two stylistic ones yes, but for the dir permissions (75549) and
> "UntrustedDeliveryAgent" and "QuarantineAgent  (75548), I tend to
> believe a pr is OK.

Always, always, always, when there is an active maintainer around,
direct contact with a maintainer is strongly preferred.

It's really an ugly habit to send-pr patch and Cc maintainer.

First, a lot of maintainers don't know how to act properly on such
emails, they just don't Cc their replies back to GNATS.

And in last row, it creates a lot of administrative overhead for us,
committers.

-- 
Pav Lucistnik <pav at oook.cz>
              <pav at FreeBSD.org>

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: Toto je digit?ln? podepsan? ??st zpr?vy
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/attachments/20041228/4da463df/attachment.sig>


More information about the freebsd-ports-bugs mailing list