From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Tue Mar 29 08:09:42 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9555AE1DA2; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:09:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970231510; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:09:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix, from userid 80) id EA68C43BED; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:09:40 -0500 (CDT) To: Alexey Dokuchaev Subject: Re: svn commit: r412019 - head/games/tbe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:09:40 +0200 From: "John Marino (FreeBSD)" Cc: marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, owner-ports-committers@freebsd.org Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org Mail-Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20160329080001.GA81193@FreeBSD.org> References: <201603272245.u2RMjdZS009225@repo.freebsd.org> <20160329073339.GA72433@FreeBSD.org> <20160329080001.GA81193@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <4eeeec4223ac25967c34601fe6f170c7@secure.marino.st> X-Sender: freebsd.contact@marino.st User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.9.1 X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:09:42 -0000 On 2016-03-29 10:00, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> 2) Repocopy makes sense to me ONCE, when creating a new port. After >> the >> port is created, don't use it within a port. I don't see people doing >> this and I'm glad about that. If we said it's okay returning >> pkg-plist, >> then you can claim it's okay for returning patch files, which is >> absurd. > > That seems arguable; I would consider repocopying even patches if > changes > warrant it, and would certainly repocopy any pkg-* files. It really > helps > to keep the dots connected and makes archaeology much easier. Once you > get into the habit of studying the history before making any changes on > a > port this becomes quite conspicuous. Recopy is not free. There is a price of effort to do this. It slows maintenance down. If somebody is truly doing geneology on a particular port, svn holds enough information. Suggesting to repocopy individual files in a port is too much for benefit of 0.00001% of the time somebody will find such effort useful. Let's not put up even more barriers to maintenance. "Keeping dots connected" doesn't demonstrate a real benefit to me. Surely svn has some kind of "diff between revs" feature that could be used by anyone that cares (which I assume is truly nobody once the academic arguments are put aside). John