[PATCH] bsd.port.mk - make relation between GH_TAGNAME & GH_COMMIT more apparent (prevent actual bug regression)

2015-04-04 Thread Adam Wolk
Hi tech@ I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit then the tagged revision so we did: GH_TAGNAME = v0.9.04 # This is the actual tagged revision # GH_COMMIT = 869d29d19719b3057

Re: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk - make relation between GH_TAGNAME & GH_COMMIT more apparent (prevent actual bug regression)

2015-04-04 Thread Landry Breuil
On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote: > Hi tech@ > > I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging > otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit > then the tagged revision so we did: > > GH_TAGNAME = v0.9.04 > #

Re: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk - make relation between GH_TAGNAME & GH_COMMIT more apparent (prevent actual bug regression)

2015-04-04 Thread Adam Wolk
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote: > > Hi tech@ > > > > I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging > > otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit > > then the

Re: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk - make relation between GH_TAGNAME & GH_COMMIT more apparent (prevent actual bug regression)

2015-04-05 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2015-04-04, Landry Breuil wrote: > On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote: >> Hi tech@ >> >> I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging >> otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit >> then the tagged revision so we d

Re: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk - make relation between GH_TAGNAME & GH_COMMIT more apparent (prevent actual bug regression)

2015-04-05 Thread Adam Wolk
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015-04-04, Landry Breuil wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote: > >> Hi tech@ > >> > >> I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging > >> otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked

Re: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk - make relation between GH_TAGNAME & GH_COMMIT more apparent (prevent actual bug regression)

2015-04-06 Thread Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Stuart Henderson said: > I think we should remove the existing ones and make it an error to > specify both GH_TAGNAME and GH_COMMIT. Thoughts? If people think this > is a good idea I'll do the ports mop-up. I'd rather see a warning saying that GH_COMMIT is ignored and should be removed. I see no

Re: [PATCH] bsd.port.mk - make relation between GH_TAGNAME & GH_COMMIT more apparent (prevent actual bug regression)

2015-04-07 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2015/04/06 11:59, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > Stuart Henderson said: > > I think we should remove the existing ones and make it an error to > > specify both GH_TAGNAME and GH_COMMIT. Thoughts? If people think this > > is a good idea I'll do the ports mop-up. > > I'd rather see a warning saying