On 2022/01/24 19:11, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > 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.
While you can sort-of do that for the odd directory, you can't do that for a whole tree, updates won't work. And git doesn't allow partial checkouts/updates. (this is one of the biggest problems I would have with any change to using git in the ports tree actually; if I am working on a port which has received a change since my last work, I want to be able to just fix conflicts in the directories I care about and _not_ be messing with the whole rest of the tree at that time). > > 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. That's not amazingly useful as the submitter already needed to build it. And a test build of a port is going to require root access in order to install dependencies which is not ideal for something where a run can be triggered by a random submission.
