From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 14:58:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744F016A4CE; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:58:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25FA43D49; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:58:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (64-144-75-100.client.dsl.net [64.144.75.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBFEwlag071288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:58:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:58:48 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20041215095848.658d4cc6@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20041215142114.GA24846@ip.net.ua> References: <200412150210.iBF2AodY094280@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041215084901.GC25967@ip.net.ua> <20041215083548.5455ea2c@localhost> <20041215135230.GA2319@ip.net.ua> <20041215090139.53a90960@localhost> <20041215142114.GA24846@ip.net.ua> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12b (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/examples/etc make.conf X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:58:49 -0000 On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:21:14 +0200 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:01:39AM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:52:30 +0200 > > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:35:48AM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:49:01 +0200 > > > > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:10:50AM +0000, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > > > > trhodes 2004-12-15 02:10:50 UTC > > > > > > > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified files: > > > > > > share/examples/etc make.conf > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > Add a few options with regards to ppp(8) and traceroute. > > > > > > Sort the list, please keep this list sorted. > > > > > > > > > > > > PR: 48569 > > > > > > > > > > > > Revision Changes Path > > > > > > 1.241 +17 -11 src/share/examples/etc/make.conf > > > > > > > > > > > You unsorted the list, please fix. The correct sorting > > > > > order here is in "dictinary order", please see sort(1). > > > > > > > > Hold on a minute. A good while ago someone (bde? you? other?) > > > > told me that these options should be sorted by dictionary order > > > > only after the separation of "NOFOO" and "NO_FOO." Am I lost > > > > or something? > > > > > > > You're lost. I fixed this some time ago (in my latest commit > > > to this file), and now you disordered it again. ;) > > > > cvs log make.conf | grep -A 10 'trhodes' > > ------------------------------------------- > > date: 2003/02/14 20:04:44; author: trhodes; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 > > Move NOMAN down the section without underscore characters. > > Add a forgotten `=' sign. > > > > Thanks to: ru, bde > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > Remember that thread? Something about bad sorting of NOMAN > > (dictionary format correct but should not be in with the > > underscored variables). > > > In the time of that commit (rev. 1.209), the underscored versions > were separated from non-underscored ones. This time (rev. 1.240), > they were merged and sorted in dictionary order (for easier human > search). You should have preserved the existing style. I don't So, your saying that in revision 1.238 it was "ok" for you to "break existing style" without documenting it in the commit log: "For variables that are only checked with defined(), don't provide any fake value." But not ok for me to "break existing sytle" in revision 1.241 which returned the style back to what we had for at least 2-3 years? (Note, my time of 2-3 years may be off, it's just a guess from since I've had my commit bit). > see any controversy between these two revisions (rev. 1.211 and > the upcoming revision when you commit my patch ;), both use the > rule "don't break an existing style". There is no real "controversy" over revisions. I just don't particularly fancy being told to do something on one commit and then get told I did almost the same thing wrong in another commit. I agree with you that variables for ppp(8) should be placed in their own specific area; however, the style thing I'm a bit leary on. Also, please take note that if I'm coming off as an asshole, I don't mean to be. I'm just concerned about how this may play out. -- Tom Rhodes