On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 04:57:49PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2022/01/24 15:51, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > Would a git-generated email with a diff be acceptable? > > https://git-send-email.io/ > > Yes as long as it's not one of those big [1/n] sequences of separate > emails that would be better dealt with in a single mail :) > > > In principle, such a patch would be very easy to apply (with git) > > to your local git repo - and it can be bounced to appropriately configured > > CI... > > Applying it with git isn't useful for someone who is going to commit > it to cvs because (even if they use a mixture of git/got+cvs themselves) > it still needs to get into their cvs checkout.
I'm guessing here, but can't you overlay CVS and git trees? If it's possible then merging with git will produce a CVS diff. > > > > At the moment it's hidden in a page named 'Building the System from > > > Source', not very clear. Maybe put in on porter's handbook? > > > > > > - Some kind of automated pre-submission sanity test would be nice. > > > Should be simpler than a full CI setup. (is my diff mangled? is my > > > tree outdated?) > > The OpenBSD-supporting CI I mentioned in my other email > > https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/compatibility.md#openbsd > > would be very easy to set up for this. > > What would you propose a CI to do for ports submissions? building (maybe testing too) the new/updated port only, just on amd64, as a start. Dima > > Identifying and building ports that depend on a particular port and > doing a build of all of them on a clean -current OpenBSD system could > be useful in some cases, though complete overkill in most, and would > take long enough that it would be silly to do before a basic review. > > There's another consideration with this. In a way it's good if a diff > from a less-experienced porter has some easier-to-spot issues (i.e. > the sort of issues that an automated check would be likely to identify) > because it's a bit of a flag that other, harder to spot, issues are > likely to be present too. >