Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:16:16 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 262148] devel/git-review: Fails to run with git >= 2.3.40: fatal: --preserve-merges was replaced by --rebase-merges Message-ID: <bug-262148-7788-zFS8vHjLme@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-262148-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-262148-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D262148 dereckson@gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|maintainer-feedback?(dereck |maintainer-feedback- |son@gmail.com) | --- Comment #2 from dereckson@gmail.com --- Thanks for the patch. This fixes a bug reporting upstream at: https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2009690 Yes, this is indeed a problem we need to fix, as it breaks the workflow on recent Git. Meanwhile, on Fedora, they took another approach: take the current reposito= ry HEAD and create a 2.2.0 themselves with the fix you included in the patch a= nd everything else: $ git-review --version git-review version 2.2.0 Generally, on FreeBSD ports, patches have a goal to make the software build= and work with FreeBSD, for example because we need to amend paths or headers. The kind of solution you suggest offers instead to create a "=C3=A0 la Debi= an" backport: a Frankenstein software with some, but not all, features of more recent versions (here 2.21 + a patch from a future release). I'm going to ask the upstream to release a 2.22 now, that will be a lot eas= ier than to maintain a collection of patches. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-262148-7788-zFS8vHjLme>