From trevor@jpj.net Tue Mar 13 19:23:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: from blues.jpj.net (blues.jpj.net [204.97.17.146]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AFE37B719; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:23:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from trevor@jpj.net) Received: from localhost (trevor@localhost) by blues.jpj.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2E3NSk26790; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:23:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20010313215630.R25904-100000@blues.jpj.net> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:23:28 -0500 (EST) From: Trevor Johnson To: , John Baldwin , Nik Clayton , Dan Langille Subject: Re: doc/25783 >Number: 25789 >Category: docs >Synopsis: Re: doc/25783 >Confidential: no >Severity: serious >Priority: medium >Responsible: freebsd-doc >State: closed >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Tue Mar 13 19:30:01 PST 2001 >Closed-Date: Thu Apr 5 07:13:39 PDT 2001 >Last-Modified: Tue Nov 27 18:35:12 PST 2001 >Originator: >Release: >Organization: >Environment: >Description: > Hmm, the only thing I see with this (the patch looks ok) is that the > rules in the CG were actually a list of rules that were drafted by > -core and voted on by the committers about a year or so ago. I'm not > sure one can just add new rules out of the blue, but then again there > is no provision for what to do with proposed changes to the rules. > Nik? I asked Dan to prepare this, because I saw a need for it but hadn't gotten around to writing it up, and he had written an e-mail (200103132133.f2DLXWs06667@ns1.unixathome.org in the "Core's function (was: The Project and onward [was: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_output.c])" thread on cvs-all/cvs-committers) about a bad experience he'd had. I had noticed an instance where two people submitted PRs requesting a change to the ports collection. The first PR was closed with a note that the ported program was already available (a port of it together with another program existed) and that the second PR existed, as though that took precedence. When the second PR was sixteen months old, a committer closed it with a note that he had just done a port of the same program himself. He didn't offer maintainership of the port to either of the people who sent in the PRs, nor did he mention either of them in the commit log for the new port. Perhaps this could be added under "Other Suggestions" with a note that it was originally requested as a rule. -- Trevor Johnson http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt >How-To-Repeat: >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: Responsible-Changed-From-To: gnats-admin->freebsd-doc Responsible-Changed-By: phk Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Apr 4 00:46:01 PDT 2001 Responsible-Changed-Why: over to doc http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25789 State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: nik State-Changed-When: Thu Apr 5 07:13:39 PDT 2001 State-Changed-Why: Changes committed. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25789 >Unformatted: