On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:21:37PM +0800, Wen Heping wrote: > 2010/11/29 Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org>: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:29:13AM +0000, Wen Heping wrote: > >> wen 2010-11-29 06:29:13 UTC > >> > >> Added files: > >> patch-Lib-test-test_threading.py > >> Removed files: > >> patch-Lib_test_test_threading.py > > > > Can you explain why this patch was renamed? "Beautifying" the name in > > this case does not warrant the repo churn. > > Previous patch could not patch cleanly and I created a new one. > When I created it I named it as other patches in this port. > > Should it be forced use the previous name ?
My point is that once file is in CVS, we should try to use it even if the name is not perfectly in line with standard scheme. The rationale behind this rule is roughly the same as why we are not renaming existing `patch-xy' patches or patches containing ::, for example. If existing patch name looks good enough (and it obviously does, since the file name is essentially the same), I think you should have not created new file (regardless of the contents). ./danfe _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
