Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 12:20:58 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Hixson <jhixson@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r528808 - head/net/nsq Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2003221218480.4184@anthias.pfeifer.com> In-Reply-To: <20200322083237.vaqvidavvdu2jrcj@atuin.in.mat.cc> References: <202003202245.02KMjo5Z005946@repo.freebsd.org> <20200321172227.zn7i4ov6vkvtboii@aching.in.mat.cc> <alpine.LSU.2.21.2003212108190.4184@anthias.pfeifer.com> <20200322083237.vaqvidavvdu2jrcj@atuin.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Mat, On Sun, 22 Mar 2020, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >>>> +PORTREVISION= 2 >>> Why bump PORTREVISION? >> John, as a bit more color: when a commit solely allows a port to build >> that failed to build before, or build where it did not build before (OS >> version, architecture,...) we don't usually bump PORTREVISION. > I do not understand what is so hard with understanding why PORTREVISION > exists. was this directed at me, or a general note? If the former, yes, I could (should) have omitted the word "usually" since I had "solely" at the beginning of the sentence. Apart from that softness, I don't sense disagreement; is there? Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LSU.2.21.2003221218480.4184>