From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 4 22:21:31 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45F0106566C; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:21:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sahil@tandon.net) Received: from spartan.hamla.org (spartan.hamla.org [206.251.255.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4928FC12; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spartan.hamla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FA317117; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:21:31 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tandon.net; h= user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type :content-type:mime-version:references:reply-to:message-id :subject:subject:from:from:date:date:received:received; s=aegis; t=1301955691; bh=gn/icRuJ8PmLZiE27fHx2Yw1SVxK06P8j4FSut5bMiE=; b= EfnIbtgupLHFTsYg2zaNKBPz/9mLuTUtgsvaO8fZC+4fI2G/OBKl/olMmYxz5oFV /qamJm0fNztW4FCPq3LaimTLcrKoXdVrTLPeRSC9nUiHoZ+7Pe72X3c3Z/grpn3W BWUXXlVAjE5MyyV5oZea4+wSyAHkWP/FYv5nzIVn5C4= X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV at spartan.hamla.org Received: from spartan.hamla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (spartan.hamla.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with LMTP id GNEOtjUxMSYF; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:21:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic.hamla.org (cpe-69-201-179-80.nyc.res.rr.com [69.201.179.80]) by spartan.hamla.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70572170F9; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:21:27 -0400 From: Sahil Tandon To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20110404222126.GA94039@magic.hamla.org> References: <201104021205.p32C5Y8g082718@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110402155230.GA80090@magic.hamla.org> <4D978D14.406@FreeBSD.org> <20110403055703.GA81066@magic.hamla.org> <4D98DAF1.5080802@FreeBSD.org> <20110403204922.GA81840@magic.hamla.org> <4D994232.30106@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D994232.30106@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Dirk Meyer , cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Sahil Tandon List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:21:32 -0000 On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 20:59:46 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >>Meanwhile, given the way that our ports and packages work bumping > >>PORTREVISION is a blunt tool, and has tradeoffs. IMO ports > >>committers need to have some firm guidelines for the common cases, > >>but also to use their discretion on the edges. > > > >That is all fine and well, but given the nature of these issues, threads > >similar to this one are unavoidable. > > I think you're right about that. What I'm not sure about is whether > you think that's a problem. It is not a problem in my opinion. > >People will always have questions about why in case X, a bump wasn't > >issued while it was in a strikingly similar case Y. And unless there > >is sufficient discussion of rationale in the commit logs, I think > >that is OK. > > I think it's Ok even if there IS adequate justification in the logs. > :) We have an influx of new committers, and those who wish to be, so > periodically re-visiting these topics is useful. I agree, but my feeling is that these threads are unlikely to be spawned in cases where commit logs are clear. But what is clear to one person may be confusing to another, so I hear you 100%. > >It is not about bright lines or other metaphors, but rather just a > >desire to understand what motivated a bump in one circumstance but > >not another. > > So *now* it sounds like you're asking for better commit logs, which is > something we definitely agree on. :) What I learned was that commit > logs should be about 1/3 "what" (since you can get the full picture > from the diff if needed) and 2/3 "why." Keeping in mind that the logs > need to be understood years from now when we're all long gone is > always a good thing too. Yes, and I myself could do a better job to that end. Between your comments and dinoex's reply, I am now clear on the what and why of this commit. Thanks. -- Sahil Tandon