Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:05:50 +0100 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r337389 - head/sysutils/hdup/files Message-ID: <20131226190550.3062c31b@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <52BC3075.1040003@marino.st> References: <201312242135.rBOLZsAX084602@svn.freebsd.org> <E682A0572B6DA7A6CA834613@ogg.in.absolight.net> <52BC3075.1040003@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:34:45 +0100 John Marino wrote: > On 12/26/2013 14:09, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> +--On 24 d=E9cembre 2013 21:35:54 +0000 John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> >> wrote: >> | Log: >> | sysutils/hdup: Unbreak on FreeBSD 10+ >> | =20 >> | The breakage was caused by processing makefiles with bmake instead of >> | the specified gmake. >> | =20 >> | PR: ports/184617 >> | Approved by: maintainer timeout >>=20 >> Just splitting hairs a bit, here, but, your commit was not approved by >> anything, to be exact, it should have read more like : >>=20 >> ------ >> sysutils/hdup: Unbreak on FreeBSD 10+ >>=20 >> The breakage was caused by processing makefiles with bmake instead of the >> specified gmake. >>=20 >> maintainer timeout (here an optional number of days/months, if you like) >>=20 >> PR: ports/184617 >=20 > Does it matter? This is how I did all my commit messages during the > probation period. Anyway, I interpret "timeout" as implicit permission > so I always thought it did apply. I also use "Approved by: maintainer timeout (N days/weeks/months)". It makes it clear that approval is normally required. Not sure where I picked up this practice though.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131226190550.3062c31b>