Hi,
> On 13 May 2020, at 3:05 pm, Jason Liu wrote:
>
> Maybe it would be better to start by submitting one PR for one isolated port.
> We can then give you feedback on anything that might need to be changed and
> merge it. This may enable you to make similar changes in your other ports
>
>
> Maybe it would be better to start by submitting one PR for one isolated
> port. We can then give you feedback on anything that might need to be
> changed and merge it. This may enable you to make similar changes in your
> other ports before submitting them. Then submit a PR for a second port.
On May 12, 2020, at 12:44, Jason Liu wrote:
> I would like to contribute a portfile for the newest version of Blender. I
> already have a local portfile that is compiling successfully, and I am doing
> some cleanup before submitting a pull request on GitHub. In addition to
> Blender itself,
>
> Mixing up new ports, with port updates, in one PR would really be a bit of
> a mess, I would say.
>
Everything is a new port, there are no updates (all library dependencies
that have already been packaged work fine as-is)... but your overall point
is well taken.
--
Jason
On Tue, May 12,
Hi,
I would definitely say the many small PR approach is preferred to a single
massive one with many many changes. A big PR like that is not going to help get
it reviewed quicker. Mixing up new ports, with port updates, in one PR would
really be a bit of a mess, I would say.
So yes, please
I think the best approach is to isolate “atomic” changes, and open a PR for
each of them. This way problems with dependencies can be isolated and decoupled
from those for Blender.
If they are really too many, maybe try to provide PRs for semantically related
libraries or somehow related in
I would like to contribute a portfile for the newest version of Blender. I
already have a local portfile that is compiling successfully, and I am
doing some cleanup before submitting a pull request on GitHub. In addition
to Blender itself, I have also packaged several of Blender's dependent
