svn commit: r366375 - head/devel/asmutils

[John Marino]

On 8/28/2014 08:28, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 03:34:52AM +0000, Vanilla I. Shu wrote:
>> New Revision: 366375
>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/366375
>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r366375/
>>
>> Log:
>>   1: Fix build on -current
>>   2: Stagify.
> 
> This commit introduces a lot of changes that are both highly questionable in
> their quality, gratuitous, and have nothing to do with staging or fixing the
> build on -CURRENT.  They also clobber the diff with r357486 and make blaming
> (svn blame) harder.  Backed out in r366380 as unrelated to the commit log.
> 

So what?
It's an unmaintained port that was 2 days from getting deleted.
I've never seen a rule to minimum blame line changes (meaning a rule
that says keep working bad style / alignment / mispellings to avoid a
line in diff)

I think partially reverting this is a bigger crime.

When I work on a port, I work on the port in the entirety, not just the
problem that I started to fixed, so I have a philosophical problem with
this reversion.

I am 100% in agreement if this was a maintained port getting changed
under a blanket, but an unmaintained port gets no protection IMO.

I'd actually like you not to do this again.  I care nothing about
clobbering diffs on unmaintained ports, and reverting just made svn
blame on this port that much more obtuse, ironically.

John