Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:34:49 +0300 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Boris Samorodov" <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, eclipse@freebsd.org, ia64@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Overlong mailing-list maintainer address in ports Message-ID: <cb5206420612231234w1b01c0bbgc61f4e8f7827e455@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <21940630@bsam.ru> References: <cb5206420612231103v69d1780dlefb3d4c62ca10baa@mail.gmail.com> <21940630@bsam.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/23/06, Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:03:06 +0300 Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > > It is by tradition that we use shorter unambiguous > > mailing-list addresses as port's maintainers ad- > > dresses. There are several ports with the following > > long addresses in the collection: > > > freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org > > freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org > > freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.org > > > Please change them to their counterparts without > > the "freebsd-" prefix, give me a go-ahead if you > > want me to change them, leave this message unan- > > swered if you don't care (I'll change them after a > > time-out), or speak up if you have anything against > > the change. > > Since I've seen many commits to GNATS last months to change > those addresses to canonical names (freebsd-*), it seems to > me that current policy is quite the opposite. Do you mean problem reports? Please understand that with over 5600 ports pointing to FreeBSD mailing-lists just "many" may not be enough. Of them all only 43 have "freebsd-"-prefixed addresses.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420612231234w1b01c0bbgc61f4e8f7827e455>