From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Wed Jul 22 13:29:36 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121CC9A6C90; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:29:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) 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 DCD7010B3; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:29:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (141.Red-83-32-2.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.32.2.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD5A43BD3; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:29:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: svn commit: r392666 - head/audio/libgroove To: Pietro Cerutti , Alexey Dokuchaev References: <201507220652.t6M6qVFO094263@repo.freebsd.org> <20150722122313.GA50653@FreeBSD.org> <20150722122531.GB50653@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, owner-ports-committers@freebsd.org Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org From: John Marino Message-ID: <55AF9AAC.8000106@marino.st> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:29:16 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:29:36 -0000 On 7/22/2015 2:44 PM, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > On 2015-07-22 14:25, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > In clear contrast with the PHB, which states "If this line is present, > future maintainers must > not change or remove it except at the original author's request." > > It does *not* say "Future maintainers can change it if not explicitly > asked not to.". > > Look, we do have rules so we don't have to argue about taste, style, > what's more sensible to you, etc. > >> Sorry I forgot to ask: so any problem with expansion? > > Yes, I do. Please revert. > So reverting it obviously goes against current practice. Is the "problem" one of principle? In other words, are you torqued because danfe touched the makefile, so you want him to revert it regardless of the commit itself? From afar, this appears like you are trying to make a point at the expense of the ports tree. John