--Signature=_Wed__14_Apr_2004_15_21_53_+0200_ixG.gH5mDTuXg4nT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:14:20 +0200
Lubomir Sedlacik <salo@Xtrmntr.org> wrote:

> could you please tell me what was the point in upgrading this package?
> 
> as stated in the PR:
> 
>  "I've diffed bmp 0.9.6 and 0.9.6.1, the changes are very very minimal,
>   they've just incorporated patch-af, so it's no longer used and thus
>   removed by my patch"
> 
> now we have two identical packages with different version numbers,
> confused people who upgrade for no reason, waster space on ftp,
> unnecessary revisions in cvs, just for a sake of "blindly committing a
> random from a PR".
> 
> did you even bother to read the PR trail before committing?

Why do you mean both version are the same? if patch-af was added into the new
version, they aren't... right? 

What's wrong on closing PRs?

-- 
	Juan RP <juan@xtraeme.unixbsd.org>

--Signature=_Wed__14_Apr_2004_15_21_53_+0200_ixG.gH5mDTuXg4nT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFAfTr0ypkLYVDran0RAiiNAJ4kMpNqwZIfoloDVI8CtJEZzcPuaACgrij8
bUp0tieUKHWtd6Cp5R3DxOQ=
=KmwV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Signature=_Wed__14_Apr_2004_15_21_53_+0200_ixG.gH5mDTuXg4nT--