From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 17 14:55:30 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 603CC836; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04EB620FD; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDE443B99; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 09:55:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <53F0C23E.3080003@marino.st> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:54:54 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Weinberger Subject: Re: svn commit: r365003 - head/devel/elfsh/files References: <201408151704.s7FH4f4W071527@svn.freebsd.org> <20140816164551.GA86642@FreeBSD.org> <53EF9469.3070704@gmx.de> <20140817091822.GA51054@FreeBSD.org> <7012BDCA-0949-4A7F-A017-D8F76476F8B9@adamw.org> <53F0C0BC.2000902@marino.st> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Adam Weinberger , olli hauer X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 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: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 14:55:30 -0000 On 8/17/2014 16:52, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> >> eye of the beholder I guess. > > It’s not supposed to be beautiful, it’s supposed to be clear when you > look at it. If we were going for beauty we could embed emoji ;-) > Then for me, it fails on that count too. It's really inter-related. If it was clear, it probably wouldn't seem ugly, right?