@vsasjason_gmail.com I know it but there is reason I don't use. When the source of patch is GitHub, content of the file sometimes changes with unknown reason and it causes checksum error. So I intentionally include patch file in ports tree.

In D53924#1233441, @yasu wrote:

@vsasjason_gmail.com I know it but there is reason I don't use. When the source of patch is GitHub, content of the file sometimes changes with unknown reason and it causes checksum error. So I intentionally include patch file in ports tree.

Are you sure it's the case for GitHub? I know it happens kinda often on BitBucket since they include git version in footer, but GitHub doesn't do that. I believe patch will never change unless repository history would be rewritten which would change commit hash (and then link to commit will change). But I'd say it would be even better to fail from our side then, to catch the fact of history rewrite.

Are you sure it's the case for GitHub? I know it happens kinda often on BitBucket since they include git version in footer, but GitHub doesn't do that. I believe patch will never change unless repository history would be rewritten which would change commit hash (and then link to commit will change). But I'd say it would be even better to fail from our side then, to catch the fact of history rewrite.

I don't agree with you. Why is it better for us to be bothered by the reason that is out of our control?

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Sat, Nov 29, 2:54 PM

Closed by commit R11:304e31bb5a7e: sysutils/tmux: Update to 3.6 (authored by yasu, committed by jrm). · Explain Why

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

jrm added a commit: R11:304e31bb5a7e: sysutils/tmux: Update to 3.6.