From owner-cvs-all Wed Jul 26 1:54: 2 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C656737B72D; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA76423; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:53:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Nik Clayton Cc: jkh@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/sys rfork.2 In-Reply-To: <20000726013247.B16065@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Nik Clayton wrote: > > > I am stone confused by this. I *KNOW* we had some song and dance about -stable > > > moving ahead because -current was broken, but that model doesn't seem to have > > > been actually followed. > > > > Minor doc commits are traditionally allowed without permission during the > > code freeze, since after all it's a *code* freeze :-) > > They are? That's not my policy. If it's a 'doc fix' to a branch that's > frozen (whether that's src/ or ports/) then it should go through either > Jordan or Satoshi (or whoever they designate) as necessary. Well, someone (Jordan) please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this is how we operated prior to 4.0, at least - after code freeze and until the tag was laid down manpage fixes were still allowed without approval, because they (mostly) don't introduce any functional bugs. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message