Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:34:01 +0200 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <freebsd@toco-domains.de> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: 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: <33bc7632-d0b2-bbb3-c35d-a2a19434e464@toco-domains.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 03.06.21 12:11, Mathieu Arnold 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. I tend to disagree. I am pretty sure that i can literally name thousands of ports which are not effected by the USE_GCC commit. Just to be clear: i am in favor of this commit-style. But enforcing this rule tries to safe a non-technical problem and just open other issues. Best, Torsten
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33bc7632-d0b2-bbb3-c35d-a2a19434e464>