From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Thu Oct 15 18:36:10 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D7AA15FB4; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:36:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fc.opsec.eu (fc.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200:4::4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60D2CC4D; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:36:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pi by fc.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ZmnNk-000L9v-09; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:36:04 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:36:03 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Alexey Dokuchaev Cc: Kurt Jaeger , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r399250 - in head: . devel devel/mongo-cxx-driver devel/mongo-cxx-driver/files Message-ID: <20151015183603.GJ1019@fc.opsec.eu> References: <201510141111.t9EBBfLS022109@repo.freebsd.org> <20151015120250.GB43539@FreeBSD.org> <20151015172213.GI1019@fc.opsec.eu> <20151015173303.GC77492@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151015173303.GC77492@FreeBSD.org> X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:36:10 -0000 Hi! > > > In this case, why it was not properly resurrected? > > Lazyness on my part, as there are 400+ other "New"er PRs in the queue. > > I just took one from the stale end of the queue to get that queue > > a tiny, tiny bit shorter. > Nonetheless, I'd kindly ask you (and everyone else reading) to do "svn cp" > when resurrecting previously removed port, as instructed by PHB and common > sense, thank you. On the one hand, you are right, we should all do it according to the books. On the other hand, if it makes it too tiresome with only very little gain, why doing it ? Even if the port was in the tree in the past and it is not resurrected, the repo still has the full history if one ever wants to know more about it. It might be a tad bit more inconvenient for someone to reconstruct it, but given that the port was missing for one year shows it's not high-prio for anyone. If it's really an important port, then I do agree that it should be done the proper and not the lazy way. -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 5 years to go !