Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:46:16 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> Cc: Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/lzip Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <20090701114616.GA11164@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090701133107.4d952dde@ernst.jennejohn.org> References: <200906301428.n5UESfiF022149@repoman.freebsd.org> <20090701073752.GA79351@FreeBSD.org> <20090701104451.GA1241@ponderosa.intelbras.com.br> <20090701133107.4d952dde@ernst.jennejohn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Jennejohn wrote: > Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > Why would maintainer need to explicitly approve their changes? > > > > It is very easy to answer, because he knows better than me if the new > > version is usable or not. The maintainer submitted an update to 1.6, and as > > we have a new release, I feel that was better ask the maintainer about that. Why would maintainer (or anyone, really) submit version that is unusable in the first place? > > > > Generally the maintainer knows better than us what is good or not for your > > ports. Of course everybody knows that. > > > > When the maintainer submits an update to one of his ports then he > rather obviously has also automatically approved the changes. > > I think that is what danfe was getting at. That's right. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090701114616.GA11164>