On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 21:36 +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:30:33PM +0100, Joel Dahl wrote.. > > On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 20:12 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > On 2006-02-10 19:06, Joel Dahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> You can use common sense though. He was obviously a ports committer. > > > > > > > > Guys, I'm lost. What are we arguing about? > > > > > > > > He was a ports committer, but I fail to see how that is important since > > > > the Development Team Alumni doesn't differentiate between different > > > > types of commit bits? > > > > > > > > Maybe I was a bit unclear with the meaning of the "unclassified commit > > > > bit" comment; it's just a reminder, since they're still in our access > > > > files. :-) > > > > > > No arguing from me. I mentioned he was the ports-meister, just in > > > case the `unclassified' comment was meant to be a reminder of ``we > > > don't know what this guy was working on''. > > > > > > It's obvious that the comment is not, since it only mentions names > > > listed in access.unclassified, so there's nothing to argue about. > > > > Yep, everyone who is in access.unclassified has the "unclassified commit > > bit" comment next to their name in the SGML source, but I can understand > > if some people were confused by the "unclassified" discussion, > > especially if they believed that asami was the only one who had that > > comment next to his name. :-) > > All that said, I would think that as a matter of principle > access.unclassified should be an empty file.
Agreed. -- Joel - joel at FreeBSD dot org _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
