From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 20 17:21:13 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4005F16A400 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:21:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from javier@kjsl.com) Received: from skywagon.kjsl.com (skywagon.kjsl.com [69.36.240.252]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C67913C484 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:21:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from javier@kjsl.com) Received: from dhcp-64-102-51-214.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-51-214.cisco.com [64.102.51.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: javier) by skywagon.kjsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2EC2A6928; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:21:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:21:08 -0400 From: Javier Henderson To: Dan Rue Message-ID: <20070620132108447264.6b8a3cd5@kjsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20070620164749.GN45993@therub.org> References: <20070620151306.GM45993@therub.org> <20070620115023971992.49dc4616@kjsl.com> <20070620164749.GN45993@therub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: GyazMail version 1.5.5 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:21:13 -0000 On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:47:49 -0500, Dan Rue wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Javier Henderson wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:06 -0500, Dan Rue wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: >>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486 >>>> >>>> This patch was supplied 2 years ago now. It doesn't change >>>> current/ expected behavior but does allow those of us with many, >>>> many systems to not get useless e-mail. >>>> >>>> It's not even my patch! I would simply like to see this done... >>> >>> I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when >>> everything is OK? >> >> So if it's quiet, is it because it's OK, or because it's too broken to >> complain? > > If it's too broken to complain, then the behavior is the same with or > without this patch. I'm just referring to the assertion that the Unix model is to be quiet when everything is OK. Maybe it's a personal preference, I guess. -jav