Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:34:54 +0100 From: Bartek Rutkowski <robak@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org>, Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r442588 - in head/www: nginx nginx-full Message-ID: <ADCB92D8-5E53-4791-8F6F-9749EA50F299@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20170606093911.GA98412@FreeBSD.org> References: <201706042038.v54KcQMf001482@repo.freebsd.org> <20170605001807.GA55217@FreeBSD.org> <C38A2113-0736-4687-91D8-D49722D61E35@adamw.org> <20170606093911.GA98412@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 6 Jun 2017, at 10:39, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:50:06PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 4 Jun, 2017, at 18:18, Sergey A. Osokin <osa@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi Bartek and Adam, >>>=20 >>> I don't think I can get this, so two questions for you guys: >>> o) what was the reason to bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx? >>> o) wouldn't it btter to just bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx-full? >>=20 >> Hi Sergey, >=20 > [ Wrapping very long lines ] >=20 >> I'll give Bartek a chance to explain in more detail, but I supported = an >> nginx bump because it was less complex for the future. >>=20 >> If nginx-full got a bump, then it would need to be bumped every time >> nginx got bumped, or nginx would have to be bumped by two and = nginx-full's >> PORTREVISION line gets removed, and then the line has to be removed = at the >> next nginx update or reset. At the end of the day, bumping nginx was = more >> straightforward. It triggers an update for everyone else, but becomes = less >> invasive over the long haul. >=20 > It seems that everyone bumps port revisions whenever they please these = days; > wondering about it just a waste of time. Just an exampler: r442562, = where > it was bumped for pkg-descr change (sic!) in a port that takes = considerable > time to build. :-( >=20 > ./danfe This wasn't the case here, so I'd take your comment as a general one ;) = I can't speak for reasons behind other bumps, so I won't, but I am = personally aware of the docs on when the bump should happen and I try to = adhere to these. When in doubt, I seek inspiration in portmgr members = and their insight was promptly provided every time, including this one. Kind regards, Bartek Rutkowski=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ADCB92D8-5E53-4791-8F6F-9749EA50F299>