cvs commit: ports/ftp/gwget Makefile distinfo pkg-plist
patch-src_gwget_data.c patch-src_main.c patch-src_wget-log.c
vd at FreeBSD.org
Thu May 11 10:01:27 UTC 2006
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:52:19AM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 08:29 +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:08:09PM +0000, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> > > sat 2006-05-10 19:08:09 UTC
> > [...]
> > > 1.1 +10 -0 ports/ftp/gwget/files/patch-src__gwget_data.c (new)
> > > 1.2 +0 -10 ports/ftp/gwget/files/patch-src_gwget_data.c (dead)
> > About the patches filenaming under files/ we are trying to follow some
> > convention - see ports/Tools/scripts/splitpatch.pl, it's best to always
> > use that for generating the file names for new patches.
> > The reason for not renaming all ports/*/*/files/* to conform to a single
> > convention is that the history would be lost.
> Really, who cares? I'm not even sure Kris looks at patches history :-)
At least me :-) History is really very important. In this particular
case it's more important than the filenaming convention.
> The main reason for me is to avoid useless commits/traffic.
Yes, this is another reason for leaving the files' names as they are.
> Eventually we split those patches when they're changed.
Coz future maintainability is more important than history :-)
gro.DSBeerF at dv
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 155 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20060511/1b47335a/attachment.pgp
More information about the cvs-ports