net-mgmt/argus3-clients: Convert to OPTIONSNG

[bofh]

Summary

• Pass Maintainership
• Wrap conditional DOCS installation

PR: 196550
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/DXXXX
Submitted by: [e-mail]
Approved by: xxxx(mentor)

Test Plan

http://pdr.s.ubze.ro/bulk/latest-per-pkg/argus-clients-sasl/3.0.8/

[marino]

The logic is different. Before it installed the manpages only if mysql option was selected, now it's doing it all the time. Was it wrong before and now it's being corrected?

Also, the "pass maintainership" is the least important change here, so it shouldn't be the title. I'd probably choose the conversion of options as the main change for the title.

[bofh]

In D1479#4, @marino wrote:

The logic is different. Before it installed the manpages only if mysql option was selected, now it's doing it all the time. Was it wrong before and now it's being corrected?

There were two .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MMYSQL} blocks in do-install, I have merged it into one. Unfortunately the patch file is not showing the first appearance of .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MMYSQL}.

Also, the "pass maintainership" is the least important change here, so it shouldn't be the title. I'd probably choose the conversion of options as the main change for the title.

But the bugzilla ticket is only for passing maintainership. So which one gets higher preference?

[marino]

There were two .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MMYSQL} blocks in do-install, I have merged it into one. Unfortunately the patch file is not showing the first appearance of .if ${PORT_OPTIONS:MMYSQL}.

ok. I thought that might be a possibility based on the commit message text.

Also, the "pass maintainership" is the least important change here, so it shouldn't be the title. I'd probably choose the conversion of options as the main change for the title.

But the bugzilla ticket is only for passing maintainership. So which one gets higher preference?

The most important change.
Remember, you can have a many-to-1 relationship with PRs to commits. I could combine 3 PRs into a single commit, and I'm going to write a commit message that describes the commit as a unit. The listed PRs are simply reference material. In your case, you are improving the port and "throwing in" the change of maintainer as a minor addition.

[bofh]

In D1479#6, @marino wrote:

Also, the "pass maintainership" is the least important change here, so it shouldn't be the title. I'd probably choose the conversion of options as the main change for the title.

But the bugzilla ticket is only for passing maintainership. So which one gets higher preference?

The most important change.
Remember, you can have a many-to-1 relationship with PRs to commits. I could combine 3 PRs into a single commit, and I'm going to write a commit message that describes the commit as a unit. The listed PRs are simply reference material. In your case, you are improving the port and "throwing in" the change of maintainer as a minor addition.

Thanks for the details.

[marino]

When the PR doesn't cover all the changes, it's helpful to indicate what changes belong to the PR with [1], [2], [3], etc, markers

e.g.

net-mgmt/argus3-clients: Convert to OPTIONSNG

- Pass Maintainership [1]
- Wrap conditional DOCS installation

PR: 196550 [1]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/DXXXX
Submitted by: [e-mail]
Approved by: marino(mentor)

So I think you should make that change to the commit message.

[marino]

That was "approval contingent" on the change I mentioned in the comment. I guess you didn't see the comment, only the approval? It was committed without the [1] marker.

[bofh]

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't see the comment.