Aug 12 2018
Aug 11 2018
Aug 9 2018
Aug 8 2018
Sean and I chatted. The ultimate thought here was (a) we were talking about two different types of private conversations and (b) the type of conversations we both cared won't be solved by this type of language. As such, just drop it.
Aug 7 2018
Aug 5 2018
Aug 4 2018
closed in r337236
Aug 2 2018
Jul 29 2018
Jul 28 2018
Jul 27 2018
I took some of your suggestions. Shortened it a bit.
Jul 26 2018
LGTM for now. There might be a way to query the terminal in some cases, but this is no worse than before.
ref rD52061 - forgot to mention the differential when transferring between git and svn
Jul 25 2018
Jul 14 2018
Jul 11 2018
Don't forget to bump .Dd when you commit btw
(I'm assuming its been tested by at least one person)
Jul 10 2018
Jul 7 2018
Thanks for the quick reply - I don't know if you saw my edit, but for some stupid reason I missed your previous reply when I replied.
Jul 6 2018
I'll probably spend some time to sbufize this, but this change is good for now.
Jul 5 2018
Jul 3 2018
@eadler :, I understand, and no problem. I think you're hitting on something that would be good to formalize, but I want to make sure that what gets prescribed as a community rule of thumb is accurate and strikes the right balance. I think we'd all collectively take something that's an improvement and incremental over something that is perfect. "Perfect is the enemy of good." :~] Also, if you want to hit me up on Slack or IRC to talk in a higher-bandwidth medium than a review, feel free.
I think this page might have referred to some of these folks in the past, but those individuals have been purged by now (at least the ones mentioned explicitly in the text). Do we have any other references to things like re@ owning release branches (and other branches during freezes?) or secteam@ owning certain parts of the tree?
Jul 2 2018
Thank you for carrying this discussion forward into a separate review, @eadler.
It seems as though this revision doesn't include an element of what you had intended with your original patch. Can you elaborate on the change that you are hoping for? I want to make sure I understand the position that you're advocating for and that I'm hearing your concerns, or that whatever point it is you're trying to make is heard.
- Take @seanc's text verbatim
I am not dropping this discussion, just going to split this review up. Expect to see an updated review, with your comments addressed, in the next week or so
It isn't about your views. It's about the project's views and core's notions of where to put and not put emphasis on in a guide to fellow committers.