Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:18:46 -0800 From: Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> Cc: "Brett G. Lemoine" <bl@incyte.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-commiters@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why not cvs-stable@freebsd.org (was Re: proposals for fixing the PROBLEM..) Message-ID: <3ABF8806.50601@quack.kfu.com> References: <20010323163104.B23438@meow.osd.bsdi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103231705330.76454-100000@sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com> <20010326094602.A48075@daemon.ninth-circle.org> <20010326100335.P5821@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <20010326201019.G48075@daemon.ninth-circle.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The trouble with these ideas is that everyone has a different set of criteria for what they want to send into which mailboxes, etc. Anyone subscribing to the FreeBSD CVS list should, IMHO, be presumed to be smart enough to set up procmail if they desire to. It's not the same audience as freebsd-questions. Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > -On [20010326 17:54], Will Andrews (will@physics.purdue.edu) wrote: > > [snip life is hard] > >> So, if the commit is on the stable branch in src/, >> send it to cvs-stable. If the commit is on the current branch of ports, >> send it to cvs-ports. And so on. Then for people like you or me or >> curious/dedicated FreeBSD power users, we have an end-all, catch-all >> cvs-[all,committers] list which is subscribed to all of the above. It's >> not like it will add much more to log_accum.pl.. plus, didn't we used to >> have things this way at some point in the past? > > > Ah ok, this explains it better. Yes, that would work yes and provide > better granularity. > > And this also illustrates the reason why you need context in an email. > =P [Excessive snipping sucks.] > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ABF8806.50601>