Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:00:55 +0300
From:      Ion-Mihai "IOnut" Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com>
Cc:        Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/95708: freebsd startup script for sec port
Message-ID:  <20060715120055.7782e16a@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060715040705.GF33499@svcolo.com>
References:  <200605050000.k4500blB001868@freefall.freebsd.org> <20060505014315.GB22804@soaustin.net> <20060715040705.GF33499@svcolo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_lndqs==WqmOR5oyMd_qG9DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:07:05 -0700
Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> wrote:

> > On 04/05/2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
> > > I'm highly amused that I would be asked to make some changes, when
> > > the request for said changes requires more typing than making the
> > > changes.  This is what, 41 characters different?
> =20
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:43:15PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > Some maintainers object, vociferously, to any change made to their ports
> > without their approval.  Therefore, the default policy is that maintain=
ers
> > need to be asked, because it is too difficult to remember which maintai=
ners
> > will complain and which won't.  This is a classical case of "damned if =
you
> > do, damned if you don't."
>=20
> I'm not certain we're talking about the same thing.
>=20
> Bouncing a patch back to me for a 12-character replacement seemed silly.

[I don't know the case in question here.]

In addition, in general, bouncing back a change to the maintainer is also a=
 learning
experience that, hopefully, will teach them not to make the same
mistake next time. You'd amazed how much we have to deal with same
mistakes over and over again.


--=20
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"

BOFH excuse #168:
le0: no carrier: transceiver cable problem?



--Sig_lndqs==WqmOR5oyMd_qG9DE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFEuK7HBX6fi0k6KXsRAq+ZAJ9ikm71ntKfBQTvVIWg90wxDiLmgQCgp58a
znodk5XRbJZwxe2kVZ0obhI=
=i2J3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_lndqs==WqmOR5oyMd_qG9DE--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060715120055.7782e16a>