From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Wed Jan 10 15:28:41 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@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 AAEEFE61EFD; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:28:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@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 8CC1479A90; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:28:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1354) id B3C4889B9; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:28:40 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Beich To: Alexey Dokuchaev Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r458645 - head/textproc/jade/files References: <201801101450.w0AEoqj9050666@repo.freebsd.org> <20180110145848.GA31640@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:28:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20180110145848.GA31640@FreeBSD.org> (Alexey Dokuchaev's message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:58:48 +0000") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:28:41 -0000 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 I've found it hard to read existing patches: - Patch files were named inconsistently - Context lines were out of date - Dates were bogus - Context lacked C function - One patch was in context diff format > 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.