hamcrest-core and backing out changes

[Blair Zajac]

nox wrote:
> 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.

Well, I don't see adding a single jar as requiring a ticket, as it wasn't 
modifying the existing files.

But that still doesn't relate to backing out changes.  On the Subversion 
project, which I'm a committer on, we have a policy of discussing (and voting if 
necessary) before reverting.  I'm not against backing out the change in this 
case, since you wanted hamcrest-core to just be the core jar file, which is ok, 
but how it was done.

Regards,
Blair