Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 14:09:40 +0000 From: "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf Makefile.amd64 Makefile.arm Makefile.i386 Makefile.ia64 Makefile.pc98 Makefile.powerpc Makefile.sparc64 Makefile.sun4v src/usr.sbin/config configvers.h Message-ID: <20070513140940.GA79950@FreeBSD.czest.pl> In-Reply-To: <20070513131603.C73427@fledge.watson.org> References: <200705130236.l4D2afwt015566@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070513131603.C73427@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 01:19:39PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sun, 13 May 2007, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > > > Log: > > Bump config(8) version and build requirement for config(8) to 600006. This > > is caused by my latest changes to config(8). You're supposed to install > > new > > config(8) in order to prevent yourself from seeing a warning about old > > version of that tool. > > > > You should configure the kernel with a new config(8) then. > > > > Oked by: rwatson, cognet (mentor) > > In typical FreeBSD parlance, we use one or both of: > > Reviewed by: whomever > Approved by: whomever > > The former states that the persons(s) in question have at least read, and > possibly also tested, the changes, and is vouching for their reasonableness. > > The latter states that the person(s) in question have authorized a commit, > typically in the role of a subsystem maintainer, mentor, release engineer, > or security officer. Sometimes it comes in the form: > > Approved by: re (whomever) > Approved by: security-officer (whomever) > Approved by: whomever (mentor) > > I don't claim that this is consistent. :-) > > I've noticed an increasing number of "OKed" commits lately -- I'd prefer it > if we stuck to our existing nomenclature with respect to how we annotate > changes with respect to review and approval. Among other things, it makes > the commit messages more mechanically parseable, and avoids ambiguity. Good suggestion. In the past I matched those rules and I plan to follow them in the future. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Wojciech A. Koszek wkoszek@FreeBSD.org http://FreeBSD.czest.pl/dunstan/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070513140940.GA79950>