Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:19:03 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r366841 - head/lang/tcl86/files Message-ID: <20140901161903.GA87909@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <540495F5.9030501@marino.st> References: <201409010731.s817Vrxf062753@svn.freebsd.org> <20140901074609.GA32100@FreeBSD.org> <65B530D9-4740-4A60-A2F5-40335A520C4E@adamw.org> <54048A3B.4030001@marino.st> <F4702D96-B141-4798-B23E-DE0408117AD7@adamw.org> <540490A4.20409@marino.st> <08AF6C39-2279-4DD9-B41C-80C4B0A6ACF3@adamw.org> <540495F5.9030501@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:51:17PM +0200, John Marino wrote: > On 9/1/2014 17:42, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:28, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: > >> This is probably the strategy of those that claim they don't care > >> about patch names yet block the change on patch names. Once > >> internal improvements are made the name changes proposal can > >> effectively trashed. You've basically asked to resubmit the > >> proposal without the name change because everyone knows part 2 > >> would be blocked on the basis it's not a good enough reason by > >> itself. > > >>> antoine is a perfectionist, and that's exactly what portmgr needs > >>> to be. Well I myself and John as I can tell as well are also perfectionists to a known degree. We've tried really hard to carefully listen to all of valid technical concerns, and we addressed them. Both Antoine and Mathieu had raised some nice edge cases that were ironed out before the patch hit the phabric. It was used for a while by me and John, and it indeed proved to work just as intended. It reduces the churn, it upholds existing, even most weird patch names, it is clearly better than anything we have right now. It is currently blocked which is totally beyond me when everyone tells that "no one cares about patches names". Fine then, give as a green light please! > The last I checked, there were 7 portmanagers, all of which are on the > review. I would think 1 guy could be outvoted but who knows? what the > portmgr do isn't all that transparent tbh. Seconded. Just a few active portmgr@ members so far had said something about it. I've tried to make their job easier by summarizing what we're up to this point, hoping that I've answered all the moot points. Alas, no answers from them since then. Now about that -p switch. Antoine, do you really think that complexity of adding an extra check that patched file is Makefile really worth it? diff(1) does a pretty good job on providing context; and it is in fact helpful for makefiles as well. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140901161903.GA87909>