Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:11:44 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r302285 - in head: audio/gmpc-mserver multimedia/xbmc Message-ID: <50249810.7020900@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgnn_USXsFT54n9xyEwsHjKSUEqadKWvaBi=_vGStMdq0g@mail.gmail.com> References: <201208081246.q78CkMJf084866@svn.freebsd.org> <50226EC7.7090400@FreeBSD.org> <502297D2.8070305@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgnn_USXsFT54n9xyEwsHjKSUEqadKWvaBi=_vGStMdq0g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/09/2012 10:02 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 8 August 2012 09:46, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Short answer: Always do related changes together in the same commit. > > I am fine with doing the initial update followed by the chase commit. You seem to be contradicting my suggestion without providing any rationale for your position. The whole point of using a CVS that does atomic changesets is to do the changes atomically so that you can take advantage of the feature. > I agree that the entire chase commit should be done at once. This > makes it easier to revert commits (and use mergeinfo in the > theoretical future you mention). Doing the commits separately does not make it easier to revert the part of the commit that updates the port. If you believe it does, please demonstrate. Absent any actual reason to do the commits separately, they should be done together. Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50249810.7020900>