svn commit: r300961 - vendor/one-true-awk/dist

[Cy Schubert]

In message <201605291817.u4TIHnN7040344 at slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert 
writes:
> In message <574B2EAC.3010908 at FreeBSD.org>, Pedro Giffuni writes:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 29/05/2016 12:37, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > > In message <201605291618.u4TGItNJ024583 at repo.freebsd.org>, "Pedro F.
> > > Giffuni" w
> > > rites:
> > >> Author: pfg
> > >> Date: Sun May 29 16:18:55 2016
> > >> New Revision: 300961
> > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/300961
> > >>
> > >> Log:
> > >>    one-true-awk: replace 0 with NULL for pointers
> > >>    
> > >>    Also remove a redundant semicolon.
> > >>    Submitted upstream already.
> > >>
> > >> Modified:
> > >>    vendor/one-true-awk/dist/b.c
> > >>    vendor/one-true-awk/dist/lex.c
> > >>    vendor/one-true-awk/dist/maketab.c
> > >>    vendor/one-true-awk/dist/parse.c
> > >>    vendor/one-true-awk/dist/run.c
> > >>    vendor/one-true-awk/dist/tran.c
> > >>
> > > Was this commit and r300962 obtained from the upline or vendor or were
> > > these commits local to FreeBSD only?
> > >
> > >
> > There is no public awk public repository AFAICT, but bwk acknowledged 
> > the submission.
> > 
> > The change to openresolv was merged to the public repository.
> 
> As they've acknowledged the submissions, can you please tag the new 
> versions of awk and openresolve with the correct upstream version numbers, 
> please?

Additionally, if there are no new version numbers, what reason is there for 
polluting the vendor branch with local patches to it? Is not the vendor 
branch for virgin code retrieved (or received) from the vendor (or upline)?


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at komquats.com> or <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org

	The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.