Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:28:37 +0100 From: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> 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: <inc9-u40q-wny@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20180110145848.GA31640@FreeBSD.org> (Alexey Dokuchaev's message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:58:48 %2B0000") References: <201801101450.w0AEoqj9050666@repo.freebsd.org> <20180110145848.GA31640@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> 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 I've found it hard to read existing patches: - Patch files were named inconsistently - Context lines were out of date - Dates were bogus - Context lacked C function - One patch was in context diff format > 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 > Regenerating them for no other purpose just creates unneeded repo > churn and jeopardizes the history. OK. Backed out in r458647.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?inc9-u40q-wny>