- User Since
- May 22 2014, 10:41 AM (221 w, 2 d)
Mon, Aug 13
Accepted with port ordering change (it should go below USES)
Accepted, with two minor review items that while aren't 'strictly' necessary, are good for consistency (both for individual ports, and against other similar ports)
Sun, Aug 12
Sat, Aug 11
Fri, Aug 10
Merge security updates and all non-version updates to the quarterly branch when/where possible. I've added MFH to the proposed commit log message
Thu, Aug 9
Tue, Aug 7
Except for this probably requiring a PORTREVISION bump since the package contents are changed, it appears fine, assuming *all* the lines being removed are relevant to that GCC_RUNTIME.
Mon, Aug 6
This LGTM. @farrokhi Could you edit the revision SUMMARY to include a proposed commit log message please (including any relevant Property: value lines). Please include a link to a release notes, changelog, and link to any migration/upgrade notes (if required, this is a major version upgrade) and an explanation for USE_GCC removal (im assuming it just now builds with clang, but clarifying this in the message is nice)
Sun, Aug 5
LGTM, thanks @loader!
Wed, Aug 1
Tue, Jul 31
For future reviews, please include a proposed commit log message including rationale for changes (where not clear from the diff) in the SUMMARY section, and include QA confirmation in the TEST PLAN section, something like:
Use MASTER_SITES=CHEESESHOP by default for Python package distribution files when the source distribution (sdist) is published there (as this one is), unless there is a compelling temporary case to use an alternative source location (like GitHub); such as missing test files / important data files, etc. In these cases, ask upstream to include relevant files in the sdist
Mon, Jul 30
Sun, Jul 29
Wed, Jul 25
Tue, Jul 24
@delphij Is that acceptance for approval to MFH ?
Does this pass QA ?(testport for all supported freebsd versions/archs, make test)
Sun, Jul 22
Not sure why the the review wasn't automatically closed, possibly because i had (based on) after the differential ID
I have a WIP about to land, adding:
Does the change pass QA (poudriere) on supported/expected FreeBSD versions/archs without regression?
Feel free to omit any - itemized changes lines that just describe 'what' the diff already shows. The whys (causes, rationales, explanations) are the important bits in the log message.
Fri, Jul 20
Remove unconditional doxygen dependency, leftover from testing
Jul 18 2018
Jul 11 2018
I can arc create the current version of the diff if you'd like?
Test suite (make test) passes?
Jun 23 2018
Please include root cause / explanations in the commit log message as well.
Jun 20 2018
Jun 18 2018
Jun 9 2018
May 31 2018
@loader Looks good mate!
May 30 2018
Changes look good, thanks for the detailed background.
May 22 2018
May 21 2018
If Allegro 5 is a 'stable' 'release', then the main allegro port (devel/allegro, currently unmaintained) should be updated to this version, with this port (devel/allegro-devel) updated to a development versions, or deleted if there are none, or is no longer needed.
@rodrigc If all the *_DEPENDS=<version-specs> up to date and matching their upstream counterparts in setup.py and it passes QA (poudriere, maketest in particular), go ahead.
May 18 2018
May 15 2018
LGTM, if this change needs to be merged (so that the quarterly version can be built without root), please add relevant MFH: YYYYQX line to commit log message
poudriere and test suite (make test) pass?
May 14 2018
Bump PORTREVISION does not sufficiently describe the summary of changes. Since this is related to Issue 228023, use it's summary as the shortlog