Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

From: Sahil Tandon <>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:49:22 -0400
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 13:39:13 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:

> On 4/2/2011 10:57 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >I share your rationale for the most part, but I am still unclear about
> >what some might call an 'edge' case.
> It sounds to me like what you want are clear, bright lines that we
> can form policy around. I wish you luck with that. :)

That is not what I want, but I do not fault you for jumping to that
reasonable conclusion.

> Meanwhile, given the way that our ports and packages work bumping
> PORTREVISION is a blunt tool, and has tradeoffs. IMO ports
> committers need to have some firm guidelines for the common cases,
> but also to use their discretion on the edges.

That is all fine and well, but given the nature of these issues, threads
similar to this one are unavoidable.  People will always have questions
about why in case X, a bump wasn't issued while it was in a strikingly
similar case Y.  And unless there is sufficient discussion of rationale
in the commit logs, I think that is OK.  It is not about bright lines or
other metaphors, but rather just a desire to understand what motivated a
bump in one circumstance but not another. 

Sahil Tandon <>
Received on Sun Apr 03 2011 - 20:49:27 UTC