Re: Status reports - why not regularly?

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus_at_marcuscom.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:31:54 -0500
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 13:28, Jonathan T. Sage wrote:
> Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:19:11PM +0100, Josef El-Rayes wrote:
> > 
> >>"Jonathan T. Sage" <sagejona_at_theatre.msu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>1. a lot of the commits are going to be ports related, and 
> >>>therefore dropped immediatally.  this sort of report is handled 
> >>>wonderfully by dan _at_ freshports, i see no reason to duplicate 
> >>>what he has done
> >>
> >>why excluding ports? i think important changes in the ports area
> >>should be covered here too. 
> > 
> > 
> > As Jonathan said, the freshports is the best site where you can
> > get all issues about it.
> > 
> > -Kirill
> Exactally, and as Mark pointed out, I think that keeping in changes to 
> the ports infrastructure (bsd.ports.mk) would be an excellent idea.

And that's the plan.  As you can see from my recent email to ports_at_
about the bsd.gnome.mk changes, I will be updating ports_at_ and
ports-developers_at_ about ports infrastructure changes under my control. 
These will contain more detailed information than is found in the commit
logs.

Joe

> 
> ~j
-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc



Received on Tue Jan 13 2004 - 09:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:37 UTC