Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:10:10 +0200 From: Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors/xemacs-devel Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/editors/xemacs-devel/files patch-configure.ac patch-emacs.c patch-mem-limits.h Message-ID: <200504181410.11740.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> In-Reply-To: <200504181349.09635.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> References: <200504181054.j3IAsZBI082981@repoman.freebsd.org> <42639571.3060503@FreeBSD.org> <200504181349.09635.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 18 of April 2005 13:49, Dejan Lesjak wrote: > On Monday 18 of April 2005 13:09, Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > > Dejan Lesjak wrote: > > > lesi 2005-04-18 10:32:26 UTC > > > lesi 2005-04-18 10:51:31 UTC > > > > > > lesi 2005-04-18 10:54:35 UTC > > > > It could be just one commit. > > Indeed it could. But it was separated regarding what each of commits did. Erm, I apologise for such short and mostly unhelpful answer. Let me explain a bit better why I did it this way. Going through CVS logs (of ports and also other projects) I find things easier to follow if unrelated changes are not bundled together in single commits, so I split this three unrelated changes in hope they look better this way in the logs. On another hand when doing for example X upgrade, it helps if entire thing is done at least pseudo atomically, so there is less chance that users get checkouts from the middle of commit. Having said that, if it is considered better to bundle changes like these for xemacs-devel, I'll stick to bundling them in the future. Dejan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504181410.11740.dejan.lesjak>