Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:07:11 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r383472 - head/audio/muse Message-ID: <20150407070711.GA90710@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <552376AD.7010903@marino.st> References: <201504061859.t36IxK0v000969@svn.freebsd.org> <20150407012902.GA22994@FreeBSD.org> <91AB85D3-A8DE-491C-A2D7-4E8D7E1CDC12@adamw.org> <20150407023204.GA44784@FreeBSD.org> <552376AD.7010903@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 08:18:21AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> On 4/7/2015 04:32, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 08:07:33PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> >> ${PORTDOCS:S,^,${WRKSRC}/,} [...]
> >> is not readable. Especially not compared to the pseudo-English statement
> >> into which sunpoet expanded it:
> >>
> >> cd ${WRKSRC} && ${INSTALL_DATA} ${PORTDOCS}
>
> Frankly I also prefer the new version. Just because experts can read it
> and understand it doesn't make it better.
No, it's not "just because", not sure why you didn't quote it: "As I've
previously had explained, "cd ${WRKSRC} && ${INSTALL_DATA}" is two-
command construct (vs. single, $cwd-agnostic command), it typically gets
longer and thus can cause line wrapping, but most importantly that it
should not have been committed in the first place as being gratuitous
change."
> The main opposition I have is when "svn blame" is given as a reason.
> I've actually heard to not do change that would be done on a new port
> simply to avoid making blame harder to read.
We do not avoid making changes merely for annotations' sake. But we do
if the change is gratuitous. It also helps to maintain claner, easier
to review diffs, and does not needlessly blow the repo size (in the long
run it might make a difference).
> Sorry, I disagree strongly with this concept. The "right thing" takes
> precedence over blame, and I define the "right thing" as something a
> brand new port would have. Secondly, I *rare* use blame; I rarely need
> it. [...]
John, with all due respect, but the fact that you do not find annonation
feature useful does not mean other people think it's useless. Also, "svn
blame" is not just a command some of us like while others don't, it's a
nice and easily comprehensible reason for why we try to avoid repo churn.
./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150407070711.GA90710>