Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 12:22:16 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-vendor@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r300961 - vendor/one-true-awk/dist Message-ID: <201605291922.u4TJMHUZ069145@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> of "Sun, 29 May 2016 14:08:59 -0500." <574B3E4B.2020501@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <574B3E4B.2020501@FreeBSD.org>, Pedro Giffuni writes: > On 29/05/2016 13:17, Cy Schubert wrote: > > In message <574B2EAC.3010908@FreeBSD.org>, Pedro Giffuni writes: > >> > >> > >> On 29/05/2016 12:37, Cy Schubert wrote: > >>> In message <201605291618.u4TGItNJ024583@repo.freebsd.org>, "Pedro F. > >>> Giffuni" w > >>> rites: > >>>> Author: pfg > >>>> Date: Sun May 29 16:18:55 2016 > >>>> New Revision: 300961 > >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/300961 > >>>> > >>>> Log: > >>>> one-true-awk: replace 0 with NULL for pointers > >>>> > >>>> Also remove a redundant semicolon. > >>>> Submitted upstream already. > >>>> > >>>> Modified: > >>>> vendor/one-true-awk/dist/b.c > >>>> vendor/one-true-awk/dist/lex.c > >>>> vendor/one-true-awk/dist/maketab.c > >>>> vendor/one-true-awk/dist/parse.c > >>>> vendor/one-true-awk/dist/run.c > >>>> vendor/one-true-awk/dist/tran.c > >>>> > >>> Was this commit and r300962 obtained from the upline or vendor or were > >>> these commits local to FreeBSD only? > >>> > >>> > >> There is no public awk public repository AFAICT, but bwk acknowledged > >> the submission. > >> > >> The change to openresolv was merged to the public repository. > > As they've acknowledged the submissions, can you please tag the new > > versions of awk and openresolve with the correct upstream version numbers, > > please? > > > That's an impossible request as there are no "correct upstream version > numbers". > > In the case of openresolv, I included the repository revision, but > checksums have > no chronological sense and should be avoided for tags. > > In this case using tags for anything other than official releases would > be a mess. > As stated in our subversion primer (5.4.4): > > "Vendor patches should be committed to the vendor branch, and merged > from there to head. If the patch addresses an issue in a new release > that is currently being imported, it /must not/ be committed along with > the new release: the release must be imported and tagged first, then the > patch can be applied and committed. There is no need to re-tag the > vendor sources after committing the patch." > That doesn't address local patches. These were local patches that were upstreamed. I rea this as, if one got a patch from an upstream VCS repo but these were our local patches. At the very least the commit logs should reference the upstream commit log entry (which the openresolve one did but the awk commit did not). I think that a clear audit trail back to the vendor VCS, bug#, etc., be documented in the commit log. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> or <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201605291922.u4TJMHUZ069145>