svn commit: r366841 - head/lang/tcl86/files

[John Marino]

On 9/1/2014 17:42, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:28, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/1/2014 17:14, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>> On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:01, John Marino
>>> <freebsd.contact at marino.st>
>>>> As I said, the issue has been solved, and the solution is
>>>> good. Nobody dislikes the new changes internally*, but
>>>> patch-naming has turned into a impasse.
>>> 
>>> Can I please request a partial commit of it? Just the stuff that 
>>> makes makepatch only update files that were actually changed,
>>> and commit headers without timestamps? Seriously, let the naming 
>>> convention piece go for now, it is blocking everything else.
>> 
>> 
>> This is probably the strategy of those that claim they don't care
>> about patch names yet block the change on patch names.  Once
>> internal improvements are made the name changes proposal can
>> effectively trashed. You've basically asked to resubmit the
>> proposal without the name change because everyone knows part 2
>> would be blocked on the basis it's not a good enough reason by
>> itself.
> 
> Or, taken the other way, you’re using part 1 as leverage in part 2’s
> bikeshed.

Those that want status-quo have the leverage.  Until it was put on
phabric, we didn't know it was going to be blocked.  We addressed all
the stated concerns *before* it was submitted (e.g. churn) on technical
levels, it still wasn't enough.  We thought the case was slam dunk, the
objects against it are subjective.


>>>> * since today, antoine says he thinks -p option on diff is
>>>> "ugly". it's a highly useful option so now we have yet another
>>>> hurdle to jump.  If not for phabric we could have had this in
>>>> ports weeks ago, but now are stuck in an impasse (which I
>>>> suspect was the outcome desired by the people that wanted it
>>>> reviewed in phabric tbh)
>>> 
>>> antoine is a perfectionist, and that’s exactly what portmgr needs
>>> to be.
>> 
>> This is NetBSD territory where 1 voice can silence 100.  more than
>> 1 person thinks it doesn't look ugly and it's useful too.  The
>> words are carefully chosen because "looks ugly" is half the reason
>> of the patch name change proposal, so if we crush "looks ugly" as
>> an aesthetic trivial opinion, we become hypocrits.  check.
> 
> I too have PR’s that died the day antoine said, “I don’t like it.”
> Yeah, I wish he’d follow-up and help me make the patches better, and
> it’s depressing to get a rejection with no offer to help make it
> better, but controlling what goes into Mk is the core of his
> responsibility.

The last I checked, there were 7 portmanagers, all of which are on the
review.  I would think 1 guy could be outvoted but who knows?  what the
portmgr do isn't all that transparent tbh.

John