Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:24:59 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <freebsd@toco-domains.de>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Replacing USE_GCC=any and the danfe@ filter (was: svn commit: r568012 - head/net/tightvnc) Message-ID: <20210603122459.1af3db38@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <20210603101157.noqag2ace5pcz6pu@aching.in.mat.cc> References: <f7316636-5fd2-cfd1-7661-3044fd782587@pfeifer.com> <20210603063235.676vy42y56fzvuu5@aching.in.mat.cc> <64998e65-5200-ba36-eb61-f54b26a6e2a8@toco-domains.de> <20210603101157.noqag2ace5pcz6pu@aching.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:11:57 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 11:50:54AM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > > > > > > On 03.06.21 08:32, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:22:47AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > > On Sun, 30 May 2021, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > > > Thank you for working on this. > > > > > > > > So, I was just ready to commit the next step and prepared a > > > > nice git style commit message: > > > > > > > > Replace USE_GCC=any with USE_GCC=yes > > > > USE_GCC=any has been equivalent to USE_GCC=yes in most > > > > cases (such as i386 and amd64 since 12.x and depending on > > > > configuration 11.x, most newer installations on other > > > > platforms, and 13.x across the board). > > > > Since commit 96c17633d90386b5bcf8 Mk/bsd.gcc.mk ... > > > > > > > > Alas, the danfe@ filter struck: > > > > > > > > remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (111/111), completed with > > > > 111 local objects. remote: > > > > remote: > > > > ================================================================ > > > > remote: First line does not start with the regular remote: > > > > category/port: subject remote: > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > > > > What now? > > > > > > > > Neither "*/*: Replace USE_GCC=any..." in the subject nor a > > > > couple dozen individual commits strike me as desirable. > > > > > > *: Replace... works just fine. > > > > This seems to be a transcription of "It works around a rule which > > has its purpose but should not be enforced 100% of the time". > > Well, no, the subject of all commits has to have a "discriminator" to > tell people scanning commits what a commit is about. > > Having '*:' or '*/*:' for commits that span many ports is also fine, > it does not defeats the rule, it acts as the discriminator saying > that it's not about a specific port, but a change, like a framework > sweep. Will cat1/port1, cat2/port2: Update to xyz still work though? If they are completely unrelated, I would assume that doing multiple commits is always preferred. But I'm thinking about ports that depend on each other, or even those using MASTERDIR, where there simply won't be a second commit. Example: devel/arcanist uses devel/arcanist-lib, so to upgrade both, only devel/arcanist-lib/* is modified. I would like to use this commit title: devel/arcanist, devel/arcanist-lib: Update to 2021-06-03 Will that pass? Thanks Michael -- Michael Gmelin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20210603122459.1af3db38>