Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 17:44:07 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <pi@FreeBSD.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r416053 - head/Mk/Uses Message-ID: <20160529154407.GA1036@fc.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <20160529152949.GA88078@FreeBSD.org> References: <201605281719.u4SHJiAa008852@repo.freebsd.org> <6084DC9FC0E493931C0C3D6B@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20160528200254.GI1036@fc.opsec.eu> <20160529152949.GA88078@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > > Done. I'm not sure *why* the kde folks requested this change > > in the first place, so I'll ask them. > > In this case I'm even more puzzled: why commit a change that you don't fully > understand? The KDE folks asked for committer support to get a bunch of changes in the tree, because there's a backlog. So I worked on those PRs, and I looked at that change, and it did look innocent and valid, without investigating all it's implications. > You should've asked them before committing, not after. It probably comes down to weight the balance between perfection and timeliness. A change never done is a change that was never wrong. > Writing proper commit messages also helps: lack of "why" clause (or inability > to come up with one) indicates that change is probably not committable yet. I agree, that's what I try to get across to the kde folks. Still not perfect, I know 8-} -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160529154407.GA1036>