From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Fri Jun 26 13:59:12 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD022358D5C; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:59:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49tdm03nbDz4fZd; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:59:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 72B4A11D80; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:59:12 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Mathieu Arnold Cc: Fernando Apestegu??a , 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> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200626134752.i4ygenf4cc6we6nk@aching.in.mat.cc> X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 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: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:59:12 -0000 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