Working with Git

2016-10-05 Thread Ryan Schmidt
Suppose a user submits an update to a port. With Subversion, the user would submit a patch in a Trac ticket. To test it, I would download the patch and apply it to my local Subversion working copy. If I like it, I commit it. If I don't like it, I give feedback to the user in the ticket, or I

Re: order of operations in port upgrade

2016-10-05 Thread Rainer Müller
On 2016-10-06 00:14, Brandon Allbery wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Rainer Müller > wrote: > > On 2016-10-05 11:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > Quick question: a normal (non-forced) upgrade currently does > > > > 1)

Re: order of operations in port upgrade

2016-10-05 Thread Joshua Root
On 2016-10-6 09:14 , Brandon Allbery wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Rainer Müller > wrote: On 2016-10-05 11:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Quick question: a normal (non-forced) upgrade currently does > > 1) install (create

Re: order of operations in port upgrade

2016-10-05 Thread Brandon Allbery
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: > On 2016-10-05 11:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > Quick question: a normal (non-forced) upgrade currently does > > > > 1) install (create new tarball image) > > 2) deactivate old > > 3) activate new > > 4) clean

Re: order of operations in port upgrade

2016-10-05 Thread Rainer Müller
On 2016-10-05 11:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Quick question: a normal (non-forced) upgrade currently does > > 1) install (create new tarball image) > 2) deactivate old > 3) activate new > 4) clean ${workpath} (unless -k) Cannot reproduce. The clean target will already be run after step 1) and

Re: order of operations in port upgrade

2016-10-05 Thread Daniel J. Luke
The proposal also has the down-side of lengthening the amount of time when neither the old nor the new port is installed and active. > On Oct 5, 2016, at 5:12 AM, Chris Jones wrote: > Hi, > > The current order makes more sense to me. Only clean once the activation is

Re: Patch naming policy (was: Re: [153574] trunk/dports/sysutils/skey)

2016-10-05 Thread Chris Jones
> On 5 Oct 2016, at 2:56 pm, Rainer Müller wrote: > > On 2016-10-05 01:45, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> Patches should follow the patch-*.diff naming scheme, so this >>> should be named patch-skeyprune-man8.diff or similar. >>> >>>

Patch naming policy (was: Re: [153574] trunk/dports/sysutils/skey)

2016-10-05 Thread Rainer Müller
On 2016-10-05 01:45, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> Patches should follow the patch-*.diff naming scheme, so this >> should be named patch-skeyprune-man8.diff or similar. >> >> https://guide.macports.org/#development.patches.source > > Popular opinion seems to be that we should relax that restriction. >

Re: [153574] trunk/dports/sysutils/skey

2016-10-05 Thread mf2k
> On Oct 4, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > >> On Oct 4, 2016, at 7:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >>> On Oct 4, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: >>> >>> Patches should follow the patch-*.diff naming

Re: order of operations in port upgrade

2016-10-05 Thread Chris Jones
Hi, The current order makes more sense to me. Only clean once the activation is successful. I also fail to see how your proposal helps with your fragmentation ? Chris On 05/10/16 10:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote: Hi, Quick question: a normal (non-forced) upgrade currently does 1) install