From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 29 12:32:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5911D1D; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:32:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ehaupt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx.critical.ch (cl-8.zrh-02.ch.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:1620:f00:7::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A9D8FC0C; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wiggles.bwns.ch (snow.ethz.ch [129.132.80.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.critical.ch (8.14.4/8.14.4/critical-1.0) with ESMTP id qATCWP5w050982; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:32:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ehaupt@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:32:25 +0100 From: Emanuel Haupt To: Eitan Adler Subject: Re: svn commit: r307902 - head/graphics/grafx2/files Message-Id: <20121129133225.9e3dbd297872a7d3d8e949f5@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: References: <201211281129.qASBT6Aw015051@svn.freebsd.org> <20121128213502.b5cd8fab508df17bad16c635@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:32:27 -0000 Eitan Adler wrote: > On 28 November 2012 15:35, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > Eitan Adler wrote: > >> On 28 November 2012 06:29, Emanuel Haupt > >> wrote: > >> > Author: ehaupt > >> > Date: Wed Nov 28 11:29:06 2012 > >> > New Revision: 307902 > >> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/307902 > >> > > >> > Log: > >> > Add patchfile. > >> > >> What does the patchfile do? Why is it needed? Was upstream > >> contacted? > >> > >> - these should be documented in the log message. > > > > It is part of the update 2 minutes earlier. I thought this was > > obvious. > > Ah, I didn't see this. In any case it would help to document these > things - especially the part about whether upstream ACKed/NACKed the > patch. You're right, I should have mentioned that in my follow up commit. The patch has been submitted upstream. Haven't heard back so far. Emanuel