From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 16:07:37 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDF3106567A; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:07:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erwin@mail.droso.net) Received: from mail.droso.net (grizzly.droso.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:7021::5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208BD8FC19; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:07:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.droso.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CC79F578A7; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:07:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:07:35 +0100 From: Erwin Lansing To: Andrej Zverev Message-ID: <20110213160735.GO18095@droso.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nLMor0SRtNCuLS/8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD/amd64 8.1-RELEASE User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/converters/p5-Text-Bidi pkg-descr ports/databases/p5-DBIx-Class-EncodeColumns pkg-descr ports/databases/p5-Dancer-Session-Memcached pkg-descr ports/deskutils/p5-ZConf-BGSet pkg-descr ports/devel/p5-App-SVN-Bisect pkg-descr ports X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:07:37 -0000 --nLMor0SRtNCuLS/8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 05:29:32PM +0300, Andrej Zverev wrote: > Pardon me but I thought what sweeping commit =3D affect huge number of po= rts > which cluster required to rebuild. > Since my commit don't touch PORTVERSION or PORTREVISION(PORTEPOCH). I rea= lly > thought it's okay. > So, what actually sweeping commit? Don't touch more then 10,20 ports per > commit? > How my changes affect on package building? If I broke something I'm ready= to > fix. >=20 I guess we'll need to update the guidelines to be more specific, especially after the change towards the soft-freeze we have used the last few releases. During the soft-freeze, it has everything to do with package building, so here we are most careful about functional changes that may break functionality requiring either large rebuilds or other time consuming fixes that may delay the release. During the slush, as we have now, it's all about potential rebuilds and retagging. As the tree has been tagged, commits will no longer affect what goes into the release, but if a security vulnerability turns up requiring a refresh of a given package, if that ports has changed all those changes, including things like shared library bumps etc, will have to be brought in as well as we can only move the tag forwards. It's a tag, not a branch. I hope that explains it a bit more in detail, but you're right that the current guidelines are outdated and should be clarified. -erwin --nLMor0SRtNCuLS/8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFNWAHHqy9aWxUlaZARAs0DAJ9FU+oBQ0Aye7InO59u0i59klArPgCgnG8T 0U+gnTBayYiIoqxhysF+pmI= =R5u5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nLMor0SRtNCuLS/8--