Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:47:33 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/examples/etc make.conf Message-ID: <20041215154733.GB85290@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20041215095848.658d4cc6@localhost> References: <200412150210.iBF2AodY094280@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041215084901.GC25967@ip.net.ua> <20041215083548.5455ea2c@localhost> <20041215135230.GA2319@ip.net.ua> <20041215090139.53a90960@localhost> <20041215142114.GA24846@ip.net.ua> <20041215095848.658d4cc6@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tom, On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:58:48AM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: > So, your saying that in revision 1.238 it was "ok" for you to > "break existing style" without documenting it in the commit > log: >=20 > "For variables that are only checked with defined(), don't provide > any fake value." >=20 > But not ok for me to "break existing sytle" in revision 1.241 > which returned the style back to what we had for at least 2-3 > years? (Note, my time of 2-3 years may be off, it's just a > guess from since I've had my commit bit). >=20 My bad that I didn't put it into the commit log. I even remember thinking about splitting the style/change thing between two commits, but then given up on the idea and just went ahead and committed it in a single revision. My excuse for that being: this commit covered a zillion of other files (see commitlogs/share.20041201.gz). > > see any controversy between these two revisions (rev. 1.211 and > > the upcoming revision when you commit my patch ;), both use the > > rule "don't break an existing style". >=20 > There is no real "controversy" over revisions. I just don't > particularly fancy being told to do something on one commit > and then get told I did almost the same thing wrong in another > commit. >=20 Sorry about that, but some facts just don't hold forever. ;) > I agree with you that variables for ppp(8) should be placed in > their own specific area; >=20 Also because that "NO" area is for documenting knobs that affect *not* building some parts of the world. In case of ppp(8), the knobs only tell how to *not* build parts of ppp(8). If there were NO_PPP, it would belong to this section indeed. > however, the style thing I'm a bit > leary on. Also, please take note that if I'm coming off as an > asshole, I don't mean to be. I'm just concerned about how this > may play out. >=20 OK, how about just committing my patch, now that you have all explanations in hands. Feel free to attribute your confusion to me. Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBwFyVqRfpzJluFF4RAtLvAJ9LQza2WYKouhPh+aFy9YS4Ys6b7QCfbhzD ZtYpETUWP2/ziDps9pTNXXU= =4dta -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041215154733.GB85290>