Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:18:51 +0100 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-branches@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r337346 - branches/2014Q1/audio/ardour/files Message-ID: <5B9F108459A3A26926CBB6AE@ogg.in.absolight.net> In-Reply-To: <20131224135023.GA94117@FreeBSD.org> References: <201312241254.rBOCsX8C087273@svn.freebsd.org> <20131224135023.GA94117@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+--On 24 d=C3=A9cembre 2013 13:50:24 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev = <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: | On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:54:33PM +0000, Mathieu Arnold wrote: |> New Revision: 337346 |> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/337346 |>=20 |> Log: |> MFH: r337319 |=20 | IMHO it should've been committed as part of r337343. There is nothing | wrong with separating complicated fix into several commits (in head/), | but if they are related, it makes more sense to merge them together, no? Yes, I could have done that, but the mfh script doesn't take more than one revision to merge at a time, and I did not notice until after the facts that there were two commits to the same port. If the original committer had asked for the merge, had gotten approval, and had done it himself, he sure would have done it like you said ;-) --=20 Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5B9F108459A3A26926CBB6AE>