From owner-dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org Thu Jun 3 10:34:03 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: dev-commits-ports-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1059F6565C4; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:34:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@toco-domains.de) Received: from toco-domains.de (mail.toco-domains.de [176.9.100.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Fwj1Q6VfHz4nnx; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:34:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@toco-domains.de) Received: from [192.168.188.32] (unknown [94.31.83.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by toco-domains.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FF6A4D481; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:34:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Replacing USE_GCC=any and the danfe@ filter (was: svn commit: r568012 - head/net/tightvnc) To: Mathieu Arnold Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org References: <20210603063235.676vy42y56fzvuu5@aching.in.mat.cc> <64998e65-5200-ba36-eb61-f54b26a6e2a8@toco-domains.de> <20210603101157.noqag2ace5pcz6pu@aching.in.mat.cc> From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff Message-ID: <33bc7632-d0b2-bbb3-c35d-a2a19434e464@toco-domains.de> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:34:01 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210603101157.noqag2ace5pcz6pu@aching.in.mat.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Fwj1Q6VfHz4nnx X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Commit messages for all branches of the ports repository List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 10:34:03 -0000 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