Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:35:06 -0500 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@tandon.net> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org" <cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org>, Yen-Ming Lee <leeym@FreeBSD.org>, "cvs-all@FreeBSD.org" <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>, "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/chinese/tin Makefile ports/chinese/tin/files patch-attrib.c patch-cook.c patch-init.c patch-mail.c patch-tin.defaults patch-tin_defaults Message-ID: <FB6E3805-E666-4E6C-97FC-54CD94ECADE7@tandon.net> In-Reply-To: <20120104110248.GA3811@FreeBSD.org> References: <201201021534.q02FYLba029039@repoman.freebsd.org> <20120103155438.GA70361@FreeBSD.org> <20120104033137.GB3565@magic.hamla.org> <20120104110248.GA3811@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:31:37PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 15:54:38 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>> ... >>>> Revision Changes Path >>>> 1.1 +11 -0 ports/chinese/tin/files/patch-tin.defaults (new) >>>> 1.2 +0 -11 ports/chinese/tin/files/patch-tin_defaults (dead)= >>>=20 >>> This renaming of the patch file just because someone thought that dot >>> looks better than underscore is gratuitous and should not have been >>> done. (Not to mention that things that this patch tries to accomplish >>> are usually done with one simple REINPLACE_CMD line.) >>=20 >> I suspect the motivation for the change was to canonicalize the filename >> as described in the PH. >=20 > I understand the motivation; for newly created files, PH rules obviously > should be followed. For already existing patches, esp. when their content= s > stays the same, such blunt renames only cause unnecessary stress on the re= po > and taint the history. Ergo, should be avoided. Sigh, please spare me the same old lecture; your logic is simple and no one i= s questioning that repo churn should be avoided. In your original mail you m= ade reference to someone who thought one character "looking better" than ano= ther was perhaps the motivation for the name change. I pointed out a more li= kely rationale and ultimately agreed that such things are anyway best handle= d in Makefile rather than standalone patches. I also used an emoticon to co= nvey that I was simply guessing the likely motivation for name change and no= t in some way defending it; however, you explicitly removed that and other r= elevant parts of my reply in your quoting above. Over and out, Sahil=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FB6E3805-E666-4E6C-97FC-54CD94ECADE7>