cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.python.mk ports/lang/python27 Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/lang/python27/files patch-Lib-test-test_socket.py patch-Lib-test-test_threading.py patch-Lib_test_test_threading.py

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:21:37PM +0800, Wen Heping wrote:
> 2010/11/29 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org>:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:29:13AM +0000, Wen Heping wrote:
> >> wen     2010-11-29 06:29:13 UTC
> >>
> >>  Added files:
> >>   patch-Lib-test-test_threading.py
> >>  Removed files:
> >>   patch-Lib_test_test_threading.py
> >
> > Can you explain why this patch was renamed? "Beautifying" the name in
> > this case does not warrant the repo churn.
> 
> Previous patch could not patch cleanly and I created a new one.
> When I created it I named it as other patches in this port.
> 
> Should it be forced use the previous name ?

My point is that once file is in CVS, we should try to use it even if
the name is not perfectly in line with standard scheme.  The rationale
behind this rule is roughly the same as why we are not renaming existing
`patch-xy' patches or patches containing ::, for example.

If existing patch name looks good enough (and it obviously does, since
the file name is essentially the same), I think you should have not
created new file (regardless of the contents).

./danfe