From owner-cvs-all Mon May 6 1:49:39 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.130.111.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C45537B400; Mon, 6 May 2002 01:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pulcherrima (pulcherrima [128.130.111.23]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g468nXW12148; Mon, 6 May 2002 10:49:33 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:49:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" Cc: Wilko Bulte , Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven , , Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules/iir Makefile In-Reply-To: <20020506102751.X34811@wantadilla.lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 6 May 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> I see lots of MFCs, but no Approved by: re@ in sight. > Well, I've done a couple of commits during code freeze, both Approved > by: murray. I think it's better to put an individual name there in > case of questions. Ideally both, when someone has a specific hat on? "Approved: re (murray)" or "Approved: murray (re)" Similarly, for the ports I noticed that often changes get committed with "Approved: maintainer" where (I think) "Approved: foo@example.com (maintainer)" would be more suitable. Both maintainers and the re team change, so having both the concrete person *and* its hat specified seems preferrable. Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message