Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 08:49:08 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@FreeBSD.org> To: Max Brazhnikov <makc@freebsd.org> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r385202 - head/java/junit Message-ID: <20150503064908.GD1022@f10.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <7414201.QOQxnrnzxF@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk> References: <201505021800.t42I0xaa004772@svn.freebsd.org> <10839610.e5Z7ptFl8I@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk> <20150502201901.GC1022@f10.opsec.eu> <7414201.QOQxnrnzxF@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > > > Thanks for update! Could you also commit the patch for libreoffice > > > from this PR? > > > > The patch is submitted to the relevant PR: > > > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199819 > > This PR shows the problem with junit-4.11_1, I don't see why it's > relevant to libreoffice problem with the newest junit. Because junit was updated because it no longer built ? I see that one argue both ways, but what's the gain ? > > If someone from office@ approves it, I can commit it. > > Too late, you have already committed update for junit, so please > just fix all dependent ports now. Done for libreoffice. Does that mean that I have implicit approval to commit the fix that danilo proposed for java/berkeley-db as well ? So why isn't danilo doing this 8-} ? https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199869 I'm getting confused on those rules about maintainer approval and other 'approval' rules, and more and more I come to the conclusion that it's no longer the simple, rational rulebase that one can easily grok. If committing to one port implicit makes one responsible for other ports beyond a certain 'depedency horizont', in a complex dependency tree this might lead to huge amounts of additional work that might become so huge as to not do it in the beginning. Is that a sensible way to handle this ? > Any comments on the second question in my previous mail? Ups, I have not seen your second question, probably cutting down on the quote would have made it easier to find ? >From what I understand, junit used/included hamcrest in the past and no longer does. I have not analysed whether there are cases where junit is needed and hamcrest is not. If danilo wants to comment on that ? -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 5 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150503064908.GD1022>