From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 1 19:31:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B765316A4D1 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:31:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail2.speakeasy.net (mail2.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0DD43D55 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:31:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 14774 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 19:31:12 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 1 Nov 2004 19:31:12 -0000 Received: from [10.50.41.235] (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA1JV42O061830; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:31:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Nik Clayton Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:27:03 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200410290824.i9T8Oflr047896@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041030014408.GA17500@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20041101123140.GB86304@clan.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <20041101123140.GB86304@clan.nothing-going-on.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200411011427.03540.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Alfred Perlstein cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Ken Smith cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sig.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:31:13 -0000 On Monday 01 November 2004 07:31 am, Nik Clayton wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 09:44:08PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > > Ok, last try at a compromise. If I commit the fix to todo > > [...] > > If J. Random committer fixes something on the ToDo list, and gets re@ > approval to merge it back to the appropriate branch, why isn't J. Random > committer updating the ToDo list at the same time? > > Seems to me if you've gone to all the trouble of fixing an item on the > ToDo list it's only fair that you get to be the one that gets to remove > it from there too. re@ decided to manage the todo list itself as people were adding items to the todo list without asking re@ if they were really show stoppers first, etc. Perhaps re@'s "managing" of the todo list can use some more refinement. Having it be a static webpage is actually not always intuitive, would be nice if it was in some kind of tracking system instead (along with all the merge requests). -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org