Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:07:35 -0600 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MOVED - from == to? Message-ID: <20060115230735.GB19392@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <43CA449C.28180.3247619B@dan.langille.org> References: <43CA449C.28180.3247619B@dan.langille.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 12:48:28PM -0500, Dan Langille wrote: > Can the FROM field be the same as the TO field in ports/MOVED? I > think not. eik and I were trying to convince people that that would be a good technique to note 'previously removed port has been reinstated', but I don't think we convinced anyone. My original interpretation of MOVED, when I built portsmon, was that it contained a complete historical record of ports that had been deleted and/or moved. To build the view of the 'latest' change, portsmon walks the tree and follows multiple entries. The reason I did it this way is that so I could say 'PR #xyz was orginally about foo/bar-devel but now it is about foo/bar since that's where foo/bar-devel got moved to." However, I also failed to convince people that keeping the historical entries was useful, and now some (but not all) of them have been flushed. Given that, we might as well flush the rest of them, and the from=to entries as well. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060115230735.GB19392>