[Not to comment on the substance, just one nit] On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:34:29PM +0200, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > There are no non-committers reading ports-committers. The > ports-committers list is a private list for those ones, who are in > CVSROOT/access for the ports repo. Similarly doc-committers and > src-committers serve in the same way but for the doc and src repos.
Gabor, maybe you haven't noticed but these messages also go to (for example) the cvs-all@ list, which *is* a public list and read by non-committers as well. For example, if you run -CURRENT (as I do) you are even *expected* (and rightly so) to read the cvs-* lists to know what is coming your way, because it is not possible to calculate all risks of a particular commit beforehand, so it cannot be expected that UPDATING will tell you everything you need to know. Likewise, for ports, it is a good idea to actually follow the ports commits (even on -STABLE) so that you see which ports actually changed (and which merely had their portrevision bumped for other reasons) and what dependencies you should consider when upgrading a port even if their portrevision was *not* bumped so automatic tools do not notice them. Both situations occur with some likelihood and reading the ports commit logs helps in both cases. Oh, and one more thing: reading the cvs-* lists is also good for deciding *when* to update your sources/ports, because that way you can see when a larger set of commits has been finished or simply, when the rate of commits has decreased sufficiently for a while (eg during the nighttime in the US) to not miss anything significant while doing the update. So, if the reviews only happened on the respective *-committers lists, I think no non-committers would complain. -- Regards: Szilveszter ADAM Budapest Hungary _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
