Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 16:48:34 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: 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: <20131224164834.GA42174@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5B9F108459A3A26926CBB6AE@ogg.in.absolight.net> References: <201312241254.rBOCsX8C087273@svn.freebsd.org> <20131224135023.GA94117@FreeBSD.org> <5B9F108459A3A26926CBB6AE@ogg.in.absolight.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > +--On 24 décembre 2013 13:50:24 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> > | 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 ;-) Hehe, fair enough. As someone who was against branching the Ports Tree, my initial feeling was "fine, folks want to play with their new toy, why would I care?", hence I did not even check quarterly branch out. Perhaps I will reconsider, but hardly before I fix all my ports in head/. ./danfe P.S. It would still be nice to have that script fixed though. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131224164834.GA42174>