ports/75551: [PATCH] Correct a 'post-patch' entry inthing.

[Pav Lucistnik]

Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v út 28. 12. 2004 v 21:31 +0200:

> > 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.
> 
> I try not to forget to say about the PRs that should be closed when my
> PRs supersede them.

Fair, I should have been more involved and track these PRs instead of
closing them. My apology.

> > > > (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.
> 
> Better that send pr and not cc the maintainer, anyway.

Yes that's worst variant.

> > 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.
> 
> I think the problem is that the subj, must begin with
> FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org or else it becomes a 'misfiled' reply.
> Only cc'ing seems not to be enough.

The trick is to leave Re: ports/XXXXX: at the beginning of the subject.

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

What luck - a dagger!  This is your holder.  Rest there and let me die.
-------------- 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/20041228/8b1944c2/attachment.sig>