Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:36:28 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> 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 Subject: Re: svn commit: r408766 - head/ports-mgmt/synth Message-ID: <56C3B27C.9090309@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <56C3AFE1.2090900@FreeBSD.org> References: <201602122156.u1CLuw2l051276@repo.freebsd.org> <56C3AFE1.2090900@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56C3B27C.9090309>