From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 15:29:13 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AF48177; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DACB1A04; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2896843BC4; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:28:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <540490A4.20409@marino.st> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:28:36 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Weinberger , marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r366841 - head/lang/tcl86/files References: <201409010731.s817Vrxf062753@svn.freebsd.org> <20140901074609.GA32100@FreeBSD.org> <65B530D9-4740-4A60-A2F5-40335A520C4E@adamw.org> <54048A3B.4030001@marino.st> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Pietro Cerutti X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:29:13 -0000 On 9/1/2014 17:14, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:01, John Marino >> As I said, the issue has been solved, and the solution is good. >> Nobody dislikes the new changes internally*, but patch-naming has >> turned into a impasse. > > Can I please request a partial commit of it? Just the stuff that > makes makepatch only update files that were actually changed, and > commit headers without timestamps? Seriously, let the naming > convention piece go for now, it is blocking everything else. This is probably the strategy of those that claim they don't care about patch names yet block the change on patch names. Once internal improvements are made the name changes proposal can effectively trashed. You've basically asked to resubmit the proposal without the name change because everyone knows part 2 would be blocked on the basis it's not a good enough reason by itself. >> * since today, antoine says he thinks -p option on diff is "ugly". >> it's a highly useful option so now we have yet another hurdle to >> jump. If not for phabric we could have had this in ports weeks >> ago, but now are stuck in an impasse (which I suspect was the >> outcome desired by the people that wanted it reviewed in phabric >> tbh) > > antoine is a perfectionist, and that’s exactly what portmgr needs to > be. This is NetBSD territory where 1 voice can silence 100. more than 1 person thinks it doesn't look ugly and it's useful too. The words are carefully chosen because "looks ugly" is half the reason of the patch name change proposal, so if we crush "looks ugly" as an aesthetic trivial opinion, we become hypocrits. check. /me moves king