Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:40:28 -0700 From: "Kurt Buff" <kurt.buff@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied? Message-ID: <a9f4a3860706201040u1f7e89eane68a7588cd017b96@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070620164749.GN45993@therub.org> References: <E745210E-A5B8-48E0-B6A8-A467F1054BD7@svcolo.com> <20070620151306.GM45993@therub.org> <20070620115023971992.49dc4616@kjsl.com> <20070620164749.GN45993@therub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/20/07, Dan Rue <drue@therub.org> 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. Indeed, which is why this patch might not be such a good idea. In this case, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, which is contrary to the general case. Perhaps the OP needs a better way of dealing with the notifications than simply turning them off. My $US0.02 Kurt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a9f4a3860706201040u1f7e89eane68a7588cd017b96>