Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:42:30 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports INDEX Message-ID: <9353.901039350@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:20:59 PDT." <199807211620.JAA23153@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bah, this is really bogus since the src tree (and Rod Grimes, from day
one) instituted a convention that release engineers would label their
tags RELENG_FOO for the reasons outlined below. I see now that this
was broken at 2.2.1 when somebody, for reasons unknown, decided to
use a totally different tag name.
This means, for one thing, that I can't modify the release/Makefile
bits to check ports out of the ports collection using the very same
tag. In fact, this has led to the ports collection tag being
essentially *ignored* from the release build's perspective (go look)
and if someone breaks the ports collection before I roll the release,
tag or no tag, then it will break. That makes the tag useful only for
cosmetic purposes and is something quite bogus indeed - it makes only
my job and the ports people's jobs that much harder.
Since we've already got 4 (soon to be 5) RELEASE_n_n_n instances
in the ports collection, I'm not going to vote that we change them
now but I WILL say that I intend to use:
RELENG_3_0_0_RELEASE
For both src and ports when we do 3.0 on October 15th and I intend to
modify release/Makefile accordingly to take advantage of this fact.
For all of 2.1, we never tagged the ports tree and this late addition
to the tagging paradigm was simply not done correctly or at least was
done by someone who didn't think it all the way through. We *should*
be able to tag the ports tree and then lift the freeze immediately
afterwards, and but for one silly difference in the tag name would
probably be doing so already (and no, I don't feel like updating two
tag names in release/Makefile when I can have just one with even
greater easy, thank you very much :-).
- Jordan
> * Erm, RELENG_2_2_7_RELEASE :-)
> *
> * That's the same tag format we've used for src and I think it'd only be
> * confusing to use a different one for ports. Also, the RELENG_
> * designator lets you know just who PUT that tag there. :-)
>
> I disagree, it is intentional, and it was our CVS-meisters who decided
> this. There is no RELENG_* branch on the ports tree.
>
> Also, changing the tag format at this point, after four of them have
> already been put down, is inconsistent.
>
> Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9353.901039350>