Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:59:12 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: Fernando Apestegu??a <fernape@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r540489 - in head/devel/fhist: . files Message-ID: <20200626135912.GA82842@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20200626134752.i4ygenf4cc6we6nk@aching.in.mat.cc> References: <202006261034.05QAYaDe038059@repo.freebsd.org> <20200626124105.GA65385@FreeBSD.org> <20200626132841.kytmjwquonpwkrhr@aching.in.mat.cc> <20200626133811.GA60522@FreeBSD.org> <20200626134752.i4ygenf4cc6we6nk@aching.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 03:47:52PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:38:11PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 03:28:41PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:41:05PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Please, "svn revert" patches which forwent no functional changes prior > > > > to making commit. It just clutters the diff and decreases SNR. :-( > > > > > > In that particular case, it was correct to commit the patch, it has > > > functional change, the range information changed > > > > I see only patch header change, and I'm pretty sure the old patch would > > apply just fine (if by "range information" you mean the line address). > > > > Generally, patch(1) does fuzzy application very well, which allows to > > carry patches unmodified literally forever (until patched file changes > > enough so the patch no longer applies). > > > > If you were talking about something else, please be more specific. > > I was talking about the range information, yes, the line numbers. It is > true that patch(1) does fuzzy patching, and it did when it applied that > patch. The committer then checked that it was still building correctly, More accurately put, checking that fuzzy application DTRT is what needs to be checked. > Now, the patches in the ports tree need to have a correct and coherent > behavior, and fuzzy patching gets it wrong from time to time. This is > why range information is not noise, but important metadata that we > prefer to be correct all the time. Well, to your definition of "we". :-) But I get it: you prefer perfect patches and noisy commit diffs; I prefer okayish (correctly applicable) patches and cleaner commit diffs. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200626135912.GA82842>