Hi Mojca,
No one seems to have replied to this so far, so I'll give my $0.02. I don't want your Wx fixes to be held up. On Aug 24, 2013, at 5:29 AM, Mojca Miklavec <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a tiny question about the intended massive change to wxWidgets. > I was thinking of doing the switch two weeks from now. (I first > thought of starting with wxPython which is already broken, but now > that almost all the ports are ready for a commit, it probably makes > more sense to change all at once.) > > Approximately one half of the ports need an upgrade (mostly because > they are either nomaintainer or the maintainer didn't upgrade them > earlier; some ports are de-facto abandoned, but the maintainers > weren't removed yet), some of them need to be fetched from > svn/git/mercurial to allow compatibility with wxWidgets 2.9 (some of > those simply because the upstream stopped uploading tar.gz-s to the > server and only rely on VCS for distribution of their sources), but > all ports need a change to account for a different location of > wxWidgets. > > I'm talking about a bit more than 40 ports in total. > > My questions: > > - Should this be addressed in a single commit or should ports be > changed one-by-one? (If one-by-one, some ports will be non-functional > for the time of updating.) > > - If they go to a single commit, what's the proper way to document > what has been changed in individual ports? Should I create a long > ChangeLog documenting changes in each individual port and commit with > svn ci -F ? Massive commits with a long detailed commit message happen every now and then. If the changes are all required to work together then a single commit is warranted. The log message can likely be simplified by saying, for example, you are unifying variant names rather than saying that for each port with a variant name change. > - I've done a bunch of commits to individual ports already. Is that > history worth keeping (by merging changes from my personal branch) or > is it better to simply copy the final change (a simple copy, not > included any svn trickery) and document all changes in that commit? I > assume it should be the latter. The latter makes sense to me, particularly for a large commit as discussed above. But whatever is easier for you is fine. HTH, Frank _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
