From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Sun May 29 15:44:12 2016 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 084A1B530F4; Sun, 29 May 2016 15:44:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fc.opsec.eu (fc.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200:4::4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9691CA3; Sun, 29 May 2016 15:44:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pi by fc.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1b72sp-0007y6-AV; Sun, 29 May 2016 17:44:07 +0200 Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 17:44:07 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Alexey Dokuchaev Cc: Kurt Jaeger , Mathieu Arnold , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r416053 - head/Mk/Uses Message-ID: <20160529154407.GA1036@fc.opsec.eu> References: <201605281719.u4SHJiAa008852@repo.freebsd.org> <6084DC9FC0E493931C0C3D6B@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20160528200254.GI1036@fc.opsec.eu> <20160529152949.GA88078@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160529152949.GA88078@FreeBSD.org> X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 29 May 2016 15:44:12 -0000 Hi! > > Done. I'm not sure *why* the kde folks requested this change > > in the first place, so I'll ask them. > > In this case I'm even more puzzled: why commit a change that you don't fully > understand? The KDE folks asked for committer support to get a bunch of changes in the tree, because there's a backlog. So I worked on those PRs, and I looked at that change, and it did look innocent and valid, without investigating all it's implications. > You should've asked them before committing, not after. It probably comes down to weight the balance between perfection and timeliness. A change never done is a change that was never wrong. > Writing proper commit messages also helps: lack of "why" clause (or inability > to come up with one) indicates that change is probably not committable yet. I agree, that's what I try to get across to the kde folks. Still not perfect, I know 8-} -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !