From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org  Tue Feb 16 23:36:36 2016
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E463AAA3A6;
 Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:36:36 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st)
Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BFEC14C0;
 Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:36:35 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st)
Received: from [192.168.1.21] (249.Red-81-44-5.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net
 [81.44.5.249])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0388B43C31;
 Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:36:31 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: svn commit: r408766 - head/ports-mgmt/synth
To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org>,
 ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org,
 svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
References: <201602122156.u1CLuw2l051276@repo.freebsd.org>
 <56C3AFE1.2090900@FreeBSD.org>
From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <56C3B27C.9090309@marino.st>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:36:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56C3AFE1.2090900@FreeBSD.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head
 <svn-ports-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-head>, 
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:36:36 -0000

On 2/17/2016 12:25 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 2/12/16 1:56 PM, John Marino wrote:
> For the sake of user sanity I highly recommend not dropping beta (or
> "unreleased") code on them with a PORTREVISION bump. Package users, and
> most ports users, have no way to know if an updated package is a
> "release" or a "candidate", etc. They just know there is an update.
> Releasing huge changes with a PORTREVISION bump is quite surprising for
> them. A synth-devel fixes this.

If one adds a patch to a versioned port, they have to bump it right?
There's no functional difference between adding patches and changing the
git hash.

I don't believe this is that surprising for the following reasons:
1) the distfile changed (same as re-roll)
2) the commit logs are quite detailed
3) PORTREVISION change doesn't mean "ignore at your leisure".  It
changes the package name, thus it's a new package.
4) This port established a history of PORTREVISION being significant

So I don't think anyone would be (or at least *should be*) wondering if
they should upgrade.

All that being said, I don't plan on freezing on version numbers and
only bumping PORTREVISION in the future.  It was more of a first release
thing.