Bug 198576 - [PATCH] devel/tig: Update to v2.1
Summary: [PATCH] devel/tig: Update to v2.1
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Some People
Assignee: Dmitry Marakasov
URL:
Keywords: patch
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-03-14 13:32 UTC by lightside
Modified: 2015-03-17 06:06 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (darcsis)

Attachments
Proposed patch (since 377726 revision) (789 bytes, patch)
2015-03-14 13:32 UTC, lightside 		no flags Details | Diff
The poudriere testport log (FreeBSD 10 amd64) (24.27 KB, text/plain)
2015-03-14 13:33 UTC, lightside 		no flags Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description lightside 2015-03-14 13:32:21 UTC 
Created attachment 154295 [details]
Proposed patch (since 377726 revision)

Patch to update devel/tig port from 2.0.3 to 2.1 version.

Look following links for changes:
http://jonas.nitro.dk/tig/NEWS.html#_tig_2_1
https://github.com/jonas/tig/compare/tig-2.0.3...tig-2.1
Comment 1 lightside 2015-03-14 13:33:07 UTC 
Created attachment 154296 [details]
The poudriere testport log (FreeBSD 10 amd64)
Comment 2 commit-hook freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2015-03-16 20:37:45 UTC 
A commit references this bug:

Author: amdmi3
Date: Mon Mar 16 20:36:51 UTC 2015
New revision: 381441
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/381441

Log:
  - Update to 2.1

  PR:		198576
  Submitted by:	lightside@gmx.com (maintainer)

Changes:
  head/devel/tig/Makefile
  head/devel/tig/distinfo
Comment 3 lightside 2015-03-16 21:31:01 UTC 
(In reply to commit-hook from comment #2)
> Submitted by:	lightside@gmx.com (maintainer)

I'm not the (original) maintainer. I just proposed a patch for update the software to concrete version.

Thanks for commit, Dmitry.
Comment 4 lightside 2015-03-17 06:06:22 UTC 
What I said in comment #3 is just for note. The proposed patch is trivial, so, I think, this is ok. Especially, if there were maintainer timeout for previous PR (which is ok also, because the software updates by upstream independently).