Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:13:29 -0500
From:      Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-branches@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r448270 - branches/2017Q3/devel/git
Message-ID:  <1503090809.2638339.1078004064.204EA724@webmail.messagingengine.com>
In-Reply-To: <3c210e9f-145e-a434-6fb3-eb4bf8814c06@passap.ru>
References:  <201708182012.v7IKCDAU008546@repo.freebsd.org> <3c210e9f-145e-a434-6fb3-eb4bf8814c06@passap.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, at 15:29, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> 18.08.2017 23:12, Mark Felder =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
> > -DISTVERSION=3D	2.14.1
> > +DISTVERSION=3D	2.13.2
>=20
> PORTEPOCH bump?
>=20
>

Unfortunately you can't do a PORTEPOCH bump in a quarterly branch unless
you do it in HEAD as well or it will break upgrades in the future.

This was intentionally reverted without a PORTREVISION bump due to the
following factors:

1) The 2.14.x update to git breaks devel/git-cinnabar as reported by
jbeich@. It should not have been merged to quarterly but there was a
miscommunication.
2) Quarterly branches are 99% of the time (fake but plausible statistic
I made up) consumed as packages only
3) This package has not yet hit our mirrors. Last package set build was
on 448018

I expect nobody to notice. This is not a wise gamble, but PORTEPOCH is a
painful scar and I'm hoping we can avoid it. If we get reports this has
actually affected someone I don't think we have a choice but to do a
PORTEPOCH.

--=20
  Mark Felder
  ports-secteam & portmgr member
  feld@FreeBSD.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1503090809.2638339.1078004064.204EA724>