From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 27 03:21:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 22792106566C; Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:21:04 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Alex Kozlov Message-ID: <20120727032104.GA59884@FreeBSD.org> References: <201207261022.q6QAM7LM066223@svn.freebsd.org> <20120726185445.GA92687@FreeBSD.org> <20120727030017.GA74963@ravenloft.kiev.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120727030017.GA74963@ravenloft.kiev.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r301558 - head/www/volta X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 03:21:04 -0000 On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 06:00:17AM +0300, Alex Kozlov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 06:54:45PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:22:07AM +0000, Alex Kozlov wrote: > > > New Revision: 301558 > > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/301558 > > > > > > @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ Squid caching proxy server (http://www.s > > > can dynamically alter URI requests that pass through Squid based on > > > various criteria. > > > > > > -It uses a state machine to parse URIs and rules, and a constant database > > > -to store and access those rules. > > > +It uses a state machine to parse URIs and rules, and a constant > > > +database to store and access those rules. It can then either perform > > > +conditional rewrites internally, or by evaluating Lua scripts. > > > > What was wrong with previous formatting? It perfectly fit 80 (78, 76) > > chars per line rule, so it would be nice to know the rationale behind > > the change. > > Apologies, I don't know about any hard rules for pkg-plist format, so I > assumed that 72 is acceptable and I didn't want to modify the submitted > patch unnecessarily. I personally think that 76 is probably the best value. 72 makes sense for email to compensate for future quoting, but this is not the case with port description texts. ./danfe