hamcrest-core and backing out changes

[nox]

Le 28 avr. 09 à 23:21, Blair Zajac a écrit :

> nox wrote:
>> Le 28 avr. 09 à 19:04, Blair Zajac a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Regarding hamcrest-core r50259
>>>
>>>   Revert r50223, this port is called hamcrest-core and thus should  
>>> install
>>>   only hamcrest-core, please create an hamcrest-library port if  
>>> you need it.
>>>   By the way, this change broke junit port as it expects to find an
>>>   hamcrest-core
>>>
>>> Please don't back out changes to commits without discussing it  
>>> first, in an open-source project it's considered rude, especially  
>>> since the port is marked as openmaintainer.  Additionally, finding  
>>> out you backed out the change just through committing isn't cool.
>>>
>>> Also, my changes left in hamcrest-core.jar, so I don't know why  
>>> you would see breakage, I didn't see it in my testing.  When I  
>>> upgrade ports, I do something like
>>>
>>> $ port contents hamcrest-core | sort > 1
>>> # install the new version of the port
>>> $ port contents hamcrest-core | sort > 2
>>> $ diff 1 2
>>>
>>> to make sure there's no missing files.  What error are you seeing?
>>>
>>> Regarding adding hamcrest-all.jar, I don't want another port just  
>>> to install one more jar, I don't see the point in that.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Blair
>> I don't see the point in having a port which installs hamcrest-core  
>> AND some other things even though it's called hamcrest-core. I  
>> thought you also changed the final jar name as it would have been  
>> at least consistent.
>> A port installing more than it should have is in no way a more  
>> expected thing than a big port installing less than you expect it  
>> to do (e.g. python). What's the problem with one more jar? disk  
>> space?
>
> Since my project needs more jars than just hamcrest-core.jar.  I'll  
> create a new hamcrest port that includes all the jars.
>

Then, we'll need to delete hamcrest-core. Separate ports look better  
to me.

> Also, you didn't address my point about acceptable policy in backing  
> out changes.  Next time you are backing out a change, please double  
> check before doing so.
>

Well, imho, your update was a major change, thus a ticket should have  
been filed.