Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:26:33 -0400 From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, "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: <CAGBxaXmth8caNitGDJY=zfUGRcwHs2ns4VJQqPzQifv3pWvhMw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200626141926.gvbb6xpbxx7aladv@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> <20200626135912.GA82842@FreeBSD.org> <20200626141926.gvbb6xpbxx7aladv@aching.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:19 AM Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:59:12PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 03:47:52PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > 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. > > Well, "we" in that sentence is defined as "ports committers". So you > may want to personnally have patch play russian roulette with the > patches from your ports, but this is not what we want. > > We want patches that apply cleanly, without patch having to randonly > decide where it is going to put the different hunks > As I said in the final patch comment (the one that was finally accepted) that I had remade it completely from scratch and did so using portlint and makepatch and then created the submitted patch file with svn diff. As to the actual functional modification made in the update the port used bison specific functionality and the ports config refused to work with byacc. Additionally the port used an implicit api.prefix in its grammar (depreciated in bison 3.6.X and removed in 3.6.4) so I added the needed code to make the api.prefix explicit. All the above procedures were done as per various feedback from commiters. So the short version is while yes the port is slightly non-standard the patch is not (as far I was lead to believe). -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGBxaXmth8caNitGDJY=zfUGRcwHs2ns4VJQqPzQifv3pWvhMw>