Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:40:33 +0200 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <freebsd@toco-domains.de> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Rule/Change-Update-Newsletter? (was: Re: Replacing USE_GCC=any and the danfe@ filter (was: svn commit: r568012 - head/net/tightvnc)) Message-ID: <6642da17-a2da-d3d0-444f-d761f2a56840@toco-domains.de> In-Reply-To: <20210603101652.v2nk3kuvbayokd2g@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> <0506d5b7-3a2e-89eb-8e72-238b7a3f3d4d@toco-domains.de> <20210603101652.v2nk3kuvbayokd2g@aching.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Aloha, On 03.06.21 12:16, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 11:55:27AM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: >> >> >> On 03.06.21 11:50, 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". >> >> Also just for fun: this new rule violates our old rule about committing new >> ports. It was always start with "New port $cat/$name". Or have we changed >> this rule? > > Well, you can try, but you will not be able to push the commit, now we > write `cat/port: new port blah`. For the same reason, all commit > subjects starts the same, it is much much easier to scan quickly. Without any judgment of this rule (here): i really have no idea that: 1) We have such a new hook 2) We changed the New port rule That raises to issues directly: 1) I am annoyed that this was not discussed (maybe in a way i noticed?) 2) I am annoyed that this change was not made clear to the committer involved. To address point 2: can we at least aim for a Newsletter (or a mail to ports-committer@) when we do such think. I really do NOT scan the porter-handbook for changes on a regular base (while i could also NOT find the change there). It would be very nice if we can be up to date to all relevant changes without reading through dozens of mailinglists or thousands of commit messages. Or has the E_NOTIME reason of most developer changed to E_HAVETIME? It it really a terrible idea to inform the team? Best, Torste
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6642da17-a2da-d3d0-444f-d761f2a56840>