Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:51:17 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r366841 - head/lang/tcl86/files Message-ID: <540495F5.9030501@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <08AF6C39-2279-4DD9-B41C-80C4B0A6ACF3@adamw.org> References: <201409010731.s817Vrxf062753@svn.freebsd.org> <20140901074609.GA32100@FreeBSD.org> <65B530D9-4740-4A60-A2F5-40335A520C4E@adamw.org> <54048A3B.4030001@marino.st> <F4702D96-B141-4798-B23E-DE0408117AD7@adamw.org> <540490A4.20409@marino.st> <08AF6C39-2279-4DD9-B41C-80C4B0A6ACF3@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/1/2014 17:42, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:28, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> > wrote: > >> On 9/1/2014 17:14, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:01, John Marino >>> <freebsd.contact@marino.st> >>>> 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. > > Or, taken the other way, you’re using part 1 as leverage in part 2’s > bikeshed. Those that want status-quo have the leverage. Until it was put on phabric, we didn't know it was going to be blocked. We addressed all the stated concerns *before* it was submitted (e.g. churn) on technical levels, it still wasn't enough. We thought the case was slam dunk, the objects against it are subjective. >>>> * 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. > > I too have PR’s that died the day antoine said, “I don’t like it.” > Yeah, I wish he’d follow-up and help me make the patches better, and > it’s depressing to get a rejection with no offer to help make it > better, but controlling what goes into Mk is the core of his > responsibility. The last I checked, there were 7 portmanagers, all of which are on the review. I would think 1 guy could be outvoted but who knows? what the portmgr do isn't all that transparent tbh. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?540495F5.9030501>