Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:53:42 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Dima Dorfman <dd@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/zic private.h scheck.c zic.c src/us Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107180348500.68640-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <p05101005b77a19ecc632@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 5:47 PM +1000 7/17/01, Bruce Evans wrote: > >On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > > > It's (realtively) small, so why not move it to contrib/ to make > > > this more obvious? src/gnu is already somewhat off in its own > > > namespace and is already treated as contrib stuff, however, how > > > are committers supposed to know what "magical" parts of > > > src/usr.s?bin/ are actually 3rd party? > > > >By reading the cvs history. > ... > If we're not going to move zic into /usr/contrib, then maybe > we could at least add a '/* NOTE */' to the README and the > start of zic.c noting it's "contrib" status. I just looked > at the CVS log for zic.c, for instance, and I must admit that > nothing really jumped out at me saying "DON'T MODIFY THIS!". > > Yes, I see the bit about "merged changes from vendor branch", > but I suspect that would not wave any red flag at me if I > were just looking to modify this source. Just having a vendor branch for a non-dead vendor should wave a flag. Bruce 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107180348500.68640-100000>