From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Jan 10 15:47:17 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D74E633ED; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:47:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 753817ACA9; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:47:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id C5D4E9290; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:47:16 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Jan Beich Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r458645 - head/textproc/jade/files Message-ID: <20180110154716.GA84263@FreeBSD.org> References: <201801101450.w0AEoqj9050666@repo.freebsd.org> <20180110145848.GA31640@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:47:17 -0000 On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:28:37PM +0100, Jan Beich wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev writes: > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:50:52PM +0000, Jan Beich wrote: > >> New Revision: 458645 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/458645 > >> > >> Log: > >> textproc/jade: regen via "make makepatch" > > > > Can we please *not* do this just to please portlint(1)? > > I've found it hard to read existing patches: > - Patch files were named inconsistently > - Context lines were out of date > - Dates were bogus > - Context lacked C function > - One patch was in context diff format These are all valid points; I did not doubt your good intentions (albeit it would help to include this list in the commit log). > > Patches tend to come and go, they are volatile enough to simply let > > the old, unconformant ones die naturally. > > Can you say the same about this port? > > - 1.2.1 is from ~19 years ago > - 1.2.1-35 patch is from ~15 years ago Oh. Is upstream still alive? Perhaps a better approach would be to try to push those patches up? > > Regenerating them for no other purpose just creates unneeded repo > > churn and jeopardizes the history. > > OK. Backed out in r458647. Well, not that I've requested it, esp. given your reasoning above, but thanks, I appreciate good team work. ./danfe