Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 09:27:54 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@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: <552386FA.7030007@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20150407070711.GA90710@FreeBSD.org> 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> <20150407070711.GA90710@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/7/2015 09:07, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote
>
> 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),
compound cd commands are typically easier to read on logs, particularly
if it removes a loop.
> it typically gets
> longer and thus can cause line wrapping,
Avoiding line wrapping is not a good reason
> but most importantly that it
> should not have been committed in the first place as being gratuitous
> change."
You've already gotten feedback from 3 people that they prefer the new
version, so that's hardly gratuitous.
> 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).
The problem is that you've defined gratuitous based on if it affects
annotations in some cases. Most of the stuff you've pushed back on, I
saw as an improvement if taken in standalone. So you are advocating
keeping inferior structures for the sake of annotation.
> 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.
I would say "if all things being equal" avoid churn with a very low
threshold. You threshold for equal is high, thus the conflict. This
desire to avoid change at all cost seems to be interfering with the
right thing.
There's only 3 cases:
1) the maintainer is doing it himself (not your business)
2) somebody is maintaining a ports@FreeBSD.org (I'd prefer it get
maintained rather than nothing, e.d. tkato's case)
3) somebody is committing on a maintained port that is not theirs.
(Here is where your svn blame concern has the most validity)
ports@FreeBSD.org ports are one step above deprecation. Just let
drive-by fixers do their job on unwanted ports without giving them too
much grief. That's my opinion.
John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?552386FA.7030007>