Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:31:51 +0200
From:      Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>
To:        marino@freebsd.org
Cc:        svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r323495 - head/games/f1lt
Message-ID:  <20130723163151.GA63694@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <51EEAD6C.7060103@marino.st>
References:  <201307221916.r6MJG7Ln085934@svn.freebsd.org> <20130723070857.GB10232@FreeBSD.org> <51EEAC10.4000004@FreeBSD.org> <51EEAD6C.7060103@marino.st>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 06:21:00PM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> On 7/23/2013 18:15, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> > Quite the contrary. If a change is needed it should be done now, not in
> > 2 months or years when it is convenient. Smaller logical commits are
> > much simpler to review and bisect than large commits. We should group
> > PORTVERSION/PORTREVISION changes together to prevent *rebuild churn*.
>=20
> "If a change is needed"
> The issue is that it is debatable that this change is needed.
> It's redundant.
> It doesn't hurt anything.
> Personally I'm fine with this type of cleanup combined with *needed*
> change, but as a standalone commit, I agree with danfe that it doesn't
> add much.
>=20
> Another example of this is trimming makefile headers without any
> additional change.
>=20

I do agree with bryan here, because in 3 years, you will spend 10 hours fin=
ding
what the old unused MACRO was used for, trust me I have spent so much time
finding old cruft in the ports tree that I prefer to see the cruft go as so=
on as
possible than staying forever.

That said, I do prefer a couple of sweep commits let's say remove all
MAKE_JOBS_SAFE from the ports I do maintain in a single commit than doing i=
t 1
by 1.

regards,
Bapt

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlHur/cACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EwkjACgowJuStPoQjCLOzFdt4LQRTZW
pt8AnA32ionG6Ev0j60SNvXSkehSAdnL
=uhhQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130723163151.GA63694>