Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>