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 :-)
--
Vasil Dimov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
pgpMMgJKfNFJS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
