Opened 6 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#44777 closed update (fixed)

p5-xml-twig @3.39 update to 3.48 (+add p5.18, p5.20, +formating)

Reported by: nortcele Owned by: frank.mcpherson@…
Priority: Normal Milestone:
Component: ports Version:
Keywords: haspatch Cc: ryandesign (Ryan Schmidt)
Port: p5-xml-twig

Description

Patch to update p5-xml-twig from 3.39 to 3.48.

Also added p5.18 and p5.20 branches.

Also updated formating to conform to other modules.

Attachments (3)

p5-xml-twig-3.48.diff (1.6 KB) - added by nortcele 6 years ago.
p5-xml-twig-3.48-1.diff (1.4 KB) - added by nortcele 6 years ago.
Patch to correct portfile presentation
p5-xml-twig-3.48-2.diff (872 bytes) - added by nortcele 6 years ago.
Patch to update p5-xml-twig from 3.39 to 3.48 + add 5.18 and 5.20 perl branches.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (13)

Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

Attachment: p5-xml-twig-3.48.diff added

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by dbevans (David B. Evans)

Cc: frank.mcpherson@… removed
Keywords: haspatch added; perl5 removed
Owner: changed from macports-tickets@… to frank.mcpherson@…
Version: 2.3.1

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Schmidt)

Ideally functional changes should be made separately from whitespace changes. When a diff makes whitespace changes to an entire portfile, it's difficult to identify what functional changes are also being made; this impedes code review and increases the likelihood that errors will be overlooked.

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

What is the correct way to do that?

A ticket with two (or more) patches: a first patch for fonctional changes and then a second patch to apply after the first one for cosmetic changes or a ticket for each patch?

Should I update this ticket with new patches?

Last edited 6 years ago by nortcele (previous) (diff)

comment:4 in reply to:  3 ; Changed 6 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)

Replying to Joel.Brogniart@…:

What is the correct way to do that?

A ticket with two (or more) patches: a first patch for fonctional changes and then a second patch to apply after the first one for cosmetic changes or a ticket for each patch?

Two patches in one ticket is fine. Please generate them such that the functional patch is applied last; this keeps svn blame useful.

Should I update this ticket with new patches?

Yes, please.

comment:5 in reply to:  4 ; Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

Replying to larryv@…:

Two patches in one ticket is fine. Please generate them such that the functional patch is applied last; this keeps svn blame useful.

Is there a rule for Portfile file names in such a case. For one patch, I use Portfile.orig and Portfile to calculate the diff. But with chained patches do I use the same names again or could I use something like Portfile.orig, Portfile.1, …, Portfile?

comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

One more question. Adding 5.18 and 5.20 to perl branches should be done in the "cosmetic" patch or in the fonctional one?

comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

Here are the two new patches that replace the first (p5-xml-twig-3.48.diff).

The first patch (p5-xml-twig-3.48-1.diff) update the formating of the portfile and add p5.18 and p5.20 perl branches.

The second patch (p5-xml-twig-3.48-2.diff) update p5-xml-twig from 3.39 to 3.48.

comment:8 in reply to:  5 Changed 6 years ago by larryv (Lawrence Velázquez)

Replying to Joel.Brogniart@…:

Is there a rule for Portfile file names in such a case. For one patch, I use Portfile.orig and Portfile to calculate the diff. But with chained patches do I use the same names again or could I use something like Portfile.orig, Portfile.1, …, Portfile?

Don’t worry too much about it; just make sure they apply. It’s trivial for the committer to use patch FILENAME instead of patch -p.

Replying to Joel.Brogniart@…:

One more question. Adding 5.18 and 5.20 to perl branches should be done in the "cosmetic" patch or in the fonctional one?

The whole point of the cosmetic patch is that it only changes the way the Portfile looks, not the way the Portfile works. Adding subports clearly changes how the Portfile works, so it is a functional change that should go in the functional patch.

Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

Attachment: p5-xml-twig-3.48-1.diff added

Patch to correct portfile presentation

Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

Attachment: p5-xml-twig-3.48-2.diff added

Patch to update p5-xml-twig from 3.39 to 3.48 + add 5.18 and 5.20 perl branches.

comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by nortcele

Patches p5-xml-twig-3.48-1.diff and p5-xml-twig-3.48-2.diff updated according to last remark.

comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Schmidt)

Cc: ryandesign@… added
Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

Maintainer timeout. I committed the whitespace changes (minus the removal of the long description) in r125266 and the update to 3.48 and the addition of the p5.18 and p5.20 subports in r125267.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.