On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:02:40 +0000 Craig Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 03:54:53PM -0400, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > > The patch in the PR actually used Tools/scripts/bump_version.pl to > > bump all those ports, but it was for *some* reason not committed, > > I chose to err on the side of caution, and submit separate PR's to the > different port maintainers, since I don't like to blindly commit to > ports which I know nothing about. > I hate it when people blindly commit to APR, so I don't want to do > the same thing to other ports. In this shlib bump case the best way to go is: - update you port and test it on Tindy - rebuild all dependent port on Tindy - if you feel the need notify the maintainers of depended ports and sort out the problems with them - commit your port update - bump PORTREVISION of dependent ports. > While you submit many good ports patches, I don't really trust your > track record. If you had an actual ports commit bit, then you > would have more credibility with me to submit mega-patches which > affect many ports. If someone who knows you better can sponsor > you for a commit bit, then you can take on more of this responsibility > for yourself, instead of dumping mega-patches for committers to pick > up I am sure only the fact that English is not my native language makes me read as I do what you wrote above. What the submitter of the PR did is: - quality work (complete work) - your work (you being the maintainer of this port) So he didn't dump anything on you, au contriare. BTW, you might want to read last portmgr report. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> [EMAIL PROTECTED], PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
