On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 01:19:39PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sun, 13 May 2007, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > > > Log: > > Bump config(8) version and build requirement for config(8) to 600006. This > > is caused by my latest changes to config(8). You're supposed to install > > new > > config(8) in order to prevent yourself from seeing a warning about old > > version of that tool. > > > > You should configure the kernel with a new config(8) then. > > > > Oked by: rwatson, cognet (mentor) > > In typical FreeBSD parlance, we use one or both of: > > Reviewed by: whomever > Approved by: whomever > > The former states that the persons(s) in question have at least read, and > possibly also tested, the changes, and is vouching for their reasonableness. > > The latter states that the person(s) in question have authorized a commit, > typically in the role of a subsystem maintainer, mentor, release engineer, > or security officer. Sometimes it comes in the form: > > Approved by: re (whomever) > Approved by: security-officer (whomever) > Approved by: whomever (mentor) > > I don't claim that this is consistent. :-) > > I've noticed an increasing number of "OKed" commits lately -- I'd prefer it > if we stuck to our existing nomenclature with respect to how we annotate > changes with respect to review and approval. Among other things, it makes > the commit messages more mechanically parseable, and avoids ambiguity.
Good suggestion. In the past I matched those rules and I plan to follow them in the future. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Wojciech A. Koszek [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://FreeBSD.czest.pl/dunstan/ _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
