Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:47:16 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r458645 - head/textproc/jade/files Message-ID: <20180110154716.GA84263@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <inc9-u40q-wny@FreeBSD.org> References: <201801101450.w0AEoqj9050666@repo.freebsd.org> <20180110145848.GA31640@FreeBSD.org> <inc9-u40q-wny@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:28:37PM +0100, Jan Beich wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:50:52PM +0000, Jan Beich wrote: > >> New Revision: 458645 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/458645 > >> > >> Log: > >> textproc/jade: regen via "make makepatch" > > > > Can we please *not* do this just to please portlint(1)? > > I've found it hard to read existing patches: > - Patch files were named inconsistently > - Context lines were out of date > - Dates were bogus > - Context lacked C function > - One patch was in context diff format These are all valid points; I did not doubt your good intentions (albeit it would help to include this list in the commit log). > > Patches tend to come and go, they are volatile enough to simply let > > the old, unconformant ones die naturally. > > Can you say the same about this port? > > - 1.2.1 is from ~19 years ago > - 1.2.1-35 patch is from ~15 years ago Oh. Is upstream still alive? Perhaps a better approach would be to try to push those patches up? > > Regenerating them for no other purpose just creates unneeded repo > > churn and jeopardizes the history. > > OK. Backed out in r458647. Well, not that I've requested it, esp. given your reasoning above, but thanks, I appreciate good team work. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180110154716.GA84263>