Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:47:33 +0200
From:      Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/share/examples/etc make.conf
Message-ID:  <20041215154733.GB85290@ip.net.ua>
In-Reply-To: <20041215095848.658d4cc6@localhost>
References:  <200412150210.iBF2AodY094280@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041215084901.GC25967@ip.net.ua> <20041215083548.5455ea2c@localhost> <20041215135230.GA2319@ip.net.ua> <20041215090139.53a90960@localhost> <20041215142114.GA24846@ip.net.ua> <20041215095848.658d4cc6@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Tom,

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:58:48AM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> So, your saying that in revision 1.238 it was "ok" for you to
> "break existing style" without documenting it in the commit
> log:
>=20
> "For variables that are only checked with defined(), don't provide
> any fake value."
>=20
> But not ok for me to "break existing sytle" in revision 1.241
> which returned the style back to what we had for at least 2-3
> years?  (Note, my time of 2-3 years may be off, it's just a
> guess from since I've had my commit bit).
>=20
My bad that I didn't put it into the commit log.  I even
remember thinking about splitting the style/change thing
between two commits, but then given up on the idea and
just went ahead and committed it in a single revision.
My excuse for that being: this commit covered a zillion
of other files (see commitlogs/share.20041201.gz).

> > see any controversy between these two revisions (rev. 1.211 and
> > the upcoming revision when you commit my patch ;), both use the
> > rule "don't break an existing style".
>=20
> There is no real "controversy" over revisions.  I just don't
> particularly fancy being told to do something on one commit
> and then get told I did almost the same thing wrong in another
> commit.
>=20
Sorry about that, but some facts just don't hold forever.  ;)

> I agree with you that variables for ppp(8) should be placed in
> their own specific area;
>=20
Also because that "NO" area is for documenting knobs that affect
*not* building some parts of the world.  In case of ppp(8), the
knobs only tell how to *not* build parts of ppp(8).  If there
were NO_PPP, it would belong to this section indeed.

> however, the style thing I'm a bit
> leary on.  Also, please take note that if I'm coming off as an
> asshole, I don't mean to be.  I'm just concerned about how this
> may play out.
>=20
OK, how about just committing my patch, now that you have all
explanations in hands.  Feel free to attribute your confusion
to me.


Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov
ru@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer

--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBwFyVqRfpzJluFF4RAtLvAJ9LQza2WYKouhPh+aFy9YS4Ys6b7QCfbhzD
ZtYpETUWP2/ziDps9pTNXXU=
=4dta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041215154733.GB85290>