Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>