From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 15:21:52 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43A62335 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 15:21:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com (mail-pd0-f176.google.com [209.85.192.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8662630 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 15:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id p10so3598966pdj.7 for ; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 08:21:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:content-type:mime-version:subject :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=SRgbpQFxsYAoxG2F6OuL2h+9DWTNEUkTD1qNFoQt/wM=; b=I18b0xn8SaJasMGlFv+zDNcZmc1zByQmnZy5vjXfSKV0EWHSS7/lTVt21AJhQKCMfD CE0jU+U6i/EMem+BfGX7GtuwXgGWViQM/S+tqpAfIdN5UVFc2FDO7acd29pkbSEQA1ST VvzkImvU7DTPhgJl78AvsBPRdD2J1QfedM95Vw8XCsSNrOQ9zwRwL62dkTvw2ciNx4w1 Kz+Vac3UNoMtT6rCuQk9Zfo3QRCD3/sVE+NJrfH/YQCMKn6Lmn89cBL6N5bvGDOnUXI1 uuOU/i7Fl5tX790L28IZpQLdi2+5dnRWS6qqE76WULtqKteCeUZ/vwskdDIN4RDXOj5V jFNg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnqrBhWOL7Zl95YyF41zxT/kDtKBqOVrjpkw0WVhhRTtYjfZPkeOOafQLXhmaefN6IIDmBX X-Received: by 10.69.17.66 with SMTP id gc2mr12867369pbd.90.1402154505110; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 08:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lgmac-cvenus.corp.netflix.com (dc1-prod.netflix.com. [69.53.236.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wp3sm49728439pbc.67.2014.06.07.08.21.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Jun 2014 08:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh From: Warner Losh X-Google-Original-From: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r266760 - head/contrib/bmake In-Reply-To: <538FE18E.7050101@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 09:21:42 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8AF17138-4C5B-4298-829E-CC2B98178DAC@gmail.com> References: <201405271839.s4RIdDq8055387@svn.freebsd.org> <538D1DB7.7010508@FreeBSD.org> <20140603044638.81DF6580A1@chaos.jnpr.net> <20140603063512.GB45150@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <538F3918.6040002@FreeBSD.org> <538FE18E.7050101@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Cc: Baptiste Daroussin , src-committers , Eitan Adler , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" , svn-src-head@freebsd.org, "Drewery, Bryan" X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:21:52 -0000 On Jun 4, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 6/4/14, 11:19 PM, Drewery, Bryan wrote: >> On 6/4/14, 2:26 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> On 2 June 2014 23:35, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:46:38PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:58:31 -0500, Bryan Drewery writes: >>>>>> Not sure if anyone cares, but this change breaks all ports tree >>>>>> checkouts from before 2014-05-05 on src head with this revision. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Yes, an older ports tree would need an older bmake (or fmake). >>>>> Are we saying ports is *not* ready for that hack to be removed? >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> IMHO it is, just people has to be aware of that :) >>>=20 >>> ports-announce@ is the correct location for this announcement :) >>>=20 >>=20 >> I think that would just confuse people. I don't think this is worthy = of such a big announcement. I can write up something to current@ and = ports@ though. It's really only an issue if you are trying to use older = ports tree and why would you anyway in most cases? >>=20 > We have a scenario where we check out a ports tree at one revision, = but then need to slide parts of it back and forth to get to a specific = revision of a port that we need. We can not affort to re-verrify every = port revision every month, so it stays at an old revision generally but = individual ports my upgrade if there is a security risk or may remain on = anold revision if a newer version breaks thins for us. (it happens). >=20 > If that breaks we will not be happy I plan on reverting this because it is premature. Too many people have = their own forked ports trees that haven=92t necessarily been updated. = The update is simple, true enough, but it is surprising. There=92s no = harm in leaving that code there for a while longer since it is opt-in = now. I may add a warning to highlight its use... Warner=