Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:40:54 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@FreeBSD.org>, Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com>, ports@FreeBSD.org, asami@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New rules for naming patches Message-ID: <3975AFE6.EBB9FB9@FreeBSD.org> References: <Pine.BSI.4.21.0007190828170.29707-100000@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Trevor Johnson wrote: > > Please let this thread die at least until you will come with full-fledged > > patches/* proposal. > > In my message "proposal: update-patches" > (http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/167/2000/6/0/3964653/) I requested > that we adopt the OpenBSD folks' naming scheme, and I presented my > adaptation of their update-patches utility for generating and updating > patches with that nomenclature. If anything more is needed, please let me > know. Yes, but your message tells almost nothing about why we should need the new naming scheme. The update-patches target doen't seems a very strong argument for it, because you can construct simple script telling which file each patch-?? corresponds to and use it in this target instead. Moreover conversion from the old to the new naming cheme uavoidably will mean loosing *all* history, because it's nearly impossible to perform such massive repo-copy, and even if you would propose automated script that will do such repo-copy this will mean mega repo-bloat given the current number of ports/patches. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3975AFE6.EBB9FB9>