From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Jun 22 16:34:20 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A83D90144 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:34:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AF381431 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:34:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 9EA12D90143; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4A1D90142 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:34:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from nm16-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm16-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.115.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47EE481430 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:34:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1498149153; bh=1hJHXYF9YIJFxouzv5waqwR1uqB7/miAvdHV1yzEWBc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=mhNXOM29/rxLzCLLgrWKKJs9QPS4dk7ZBUMgK9aaIRgz0XqEM6OzY8q8G0nkILOD7i0APFlCGuaQEIMVeJmSvOVGrGpf2/8hxAZtC/QYjJ+tCWEhLyAYj3GQdYKhRQubMq50i8JUMTWCG7F3jJcjHS67OpLCxrj2xGJqvOUTg9U= Received: from [66.196.81.160] by nm16.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2017 16:32:33 -0000 Received: from [98.139.221.156] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2017 16:32:33 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp116.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2017 16:32:33 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 7642.34567.bm@smtp116.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: TB3C088VM1m2sf__ZsIFqr2LEEBqomcuUa5j0Joje2i20WG GjxpHBQRT.PKrPt16yejVYKL248s9YiaH4bptArrkwM0EkzNGBRoKTefLNb2 5HZ6_whWwfSnGsDJmVEOHFG5Rys8uVsyABzPS7vycheI2zeaI0HfuLSuyN3Z YkR4K0GITmXvrPfjBoDMudsea95RhnmZu0UWMgzYfpeRTVCBeM2l.63P6shH zex4wT8topkxYRdLc8C1EVBNwDQiSSKjTa3JGC0JHs0P2RlShqXHe2Jh6qEQ ztda4ysANdg3Jjxi9lIcrlHR8cVEahKdLJ30z.gb0mTNMJK9S4DMrwwRgRC. _r_c.nP_FEfu5IuDlIwvL1GvDas_88LN6bsEO7W3dZVz4_bUS4s10j.LLM2F Qc4p8C1JbUZstJe1dfNvjSUNTBS51QQz1cHm60JwYz6uFtCsGplPE177.zaV yYfv6h0jsnFUfE9jJTiBTYUwfNxJTxsbaal88skqoyCP_jeFYs7LOf4hP5gL SE5QCgolZmO98qkUOSTrT2QF9fGEFXx4JHkRKMeRJzZiyF3SikHpavA-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: pPvqnOaswBBbYZLVYFzvU7GaowLcbNioPp.aF8KvOjZk From: To: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:32:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> References: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> In-Reply-To: <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:34:20 -0000 [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:16:44 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >The model with one branch per release will bring it to way more with a >maintenance window way larger It would indeed! Factor of 3, I think. But I'm really not suggesting that, I'm suggesting that a better schedule would be one ports release for v10, one for v11, one for v12, etc. It could be done for n.0 or any of the others. Were it my decision, I'd probably go for n.1, since there might be fewer bugs than in n.0, but the difference might not be significant. My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be a Really Good Thing for everyone. Yet apparently you and others on the dev team don't like the idea, and no matter how I much I think about it, I haven't been able to understand why you don't. 's mise le meas