As I recall, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Andrew Boothman once stated:
>
> =* If the PR is for a port make sure that "port update" is in the
> =synopsis field, if only so that it catches Neil Blakey-Milner's regular
> =check for such PR's, but also to act as a good description.
> =
> =* If you are the MAINTAINER of a piece of code (or more likely a port)
> =and don't have commit privs, put "MAINTAINER update" in the synopsis,
> =for the same reasons as before.
>
> Use of synopsis for this worries me. Perhaps, this warrants two
> new classes: ``update'' and ``maintainer-update'' in addition to the
> all-including ``change-request''?
I too am a bit worried. Are we saying that one of the ports
committers doesn't expect to do that job unless certain keywords
are in the PR? If so, that should be documented other than in
e-mail here.
-crl
--
Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
