Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 00:32:28 -0300 From: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> To: "Jason E. Hale" <jhale@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-branches@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 082542e6c694 - 2024Q1 - */*: Chase editors/emacs update Message-ID: <86y19pluer.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> In-Reply-To: <86edbim1gg.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> (Joseph Mingrone's message of "Sat, 06 Apr 2024 22:00:15 -0300") References: <202403262357.42QNvEQP032101@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <CAJE75NHaqRksVkwzRKm2c=WnKNcZUMjDMrhJetHKRaF2EYjDTA@mail.gmail.com> <86jzlbmdae.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> <CAJE75NHZFFPt0ewUxLGT%2B3=YsjNWcbMBPxwgPfWqgVw9ffLTEg@mail.gmail.com> <86edbim1gg.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 22:00, Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 19:53, "Jason E. Hale" <jhale@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:32=E2=80=AFPM Joseph Mingrone <jrm@freebsd.org= > wrote: >>> On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 19:13, "Jason E. Hale" <jhale@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:57=E2=80=AFPM Joseph Mingrone <jrm@freebsd.= org> wrote: >>> >> The branch 2024Q1 has been updated by jrm: >>> >> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=3D082542e6c694d58c24d= 1c425c9f06441c6a16db7 >>> >> commit 082542e6c694d58c24d1c425c9f06441c6a16db7 >>> >> Author: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> >>> >> AuthorDate: 2024-01-26 14:13:34 +0000 >>> >> Commit: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> >>> >> CommitDate: 2024-03-26 23:41:02 +0000 >>> >> */*: Chase editors/emacs update >>> >> - Bump Emacs version in Mk/Uses/emacs.mk to update version-speci= fic >>> >> paths >>> >> - Bump PORTREVISION of ports with USES=3Demacs. This is require= d for two >>> >> reasons. Emacs lisp files need to be byte compiled for the ne= w Emacs >>> >> version, and files installed under, e.g., EMACS_VERSION_SITE_L= ISPDIR >>> >> need to be relocated. >>> >> Reviewed by: ashish >>> >> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation >>> >> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D43615 >>> >> (cherry picked from commit ab463bdca9c29ec22be0c7e6d7aa27bb2a980= b48) >>> >> --- >>> > Hi, >>> > You bumped more than PORTREVISION on several ports with this cherry >>> > pick, leading to breakage in the 2024Q1 branch since the >>> > (POR|DIS)TVERSIONs no longer match distinfo. >>> > - Jason >>> My apologies if I messed up the resolution of some of the many merge >>> conflicts. I'll take a closer look this weekend, but since we're now in >>> Q2, from a user perspective, isn't this now moot? >>> J. >> Considering the delay in cutting the 2024Q2 branch, I don't think it's >> moot to fix errors in the current quarterly branch which is still >> 2024Q1 at time of writing. Had the Q2 branch already been cut, I >> wouldn't have received the numerous pkg-fallout emails that caused me >> to investigate this in the first place, so I'm not pointing this out >> just to be petty. :) I'm not sure how much longer we'll be on Q1, so I >> think the responsible thing to do would be to revert the >> PORTVERSION/DISTVERSION changes for audio/emms, devel/clojure-cider, >> and mail/anubis. For mail/anubis, the PORTREVISION should then be 18, >> because it was 17 before this change. > I only had a few minutes to write the last email and didn't have a > chance to check the quarterly branch status and just assumed Q2 had been > cut. I'm working on fixing things now and will loop you in soon. I reverted the changes for the messed-up ports and just gave them a PORTREVISION bump. As an aside, I think this is a good example of why another discussion on the costs versus benefits of having a quarterly branch is warranted. Ashish rightfully merged a security update for editors/emacs, but many ports would have been broken without a PORTREVISION bump. Merging the commits for the PORTREVSION bumps was a pain because of the divergence between the branches. I believe the results of the recent community survey will be released soon. If I recall correctly, something in the range of 15% of respondents prefer infrequent package updates. I think that begs the question whether maintaining two port branches is worth the effort. Joe --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKkBAEBCgCOFiEEVbCTpybDiFVxIrrVNqQMg7DW754FAmYSE8xfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDU1 QjA5M0E3MjZDMzg4NTU3MTIyQkFENTM2QTQwQzgzQjBENkVGOUUQHGpybUBmcmVl YnNkLm9yZwAKCRA2pAyDsNbvngcnD/99Ee+GnbZO12sZv/ik3ygV9baSw3W6xRL5 ImWF8C+Zdd5fFjyUnsonMaCOLcmr75Otjp1TojQfax0M2K4v1+skFiG8smt7Rstm zOt+3hRhYniYVLp8I7n5I9zjEOLgq5xWMWhVKoghCD2IBqNWHc3wVNs2dW+WNHD1 l7m8pzLyOrMkWzlOCPYcVoXzsVACPBhI/fgzgZb2sLWI0+pCosFwHW9aSnLBHNVh v3NmkWFFa11JGMTCb57KEwXQNuzHETqQQ0/yeTQ7lvpet93+RTTAMFk1DoL0yttP Umjj1ZLlrBpiwI8ga33RIM/8wabDzQTvMTVprr8T50OxIHALGqnEAzA5qAyTt9k2 dignKYvz8Mo0znfVpXLoX1Ne+X83SpUCl6VoCUOx97o7lgAAe4pA46X7rq1cZ8jm L6T48HHIGcI3JUQ9koDwgIIA3GdvwckuzrbDQoOXwSyDhzmzWBFYXjfRcwlovSjt 9uONBwYpu5vkmMNRVX/Gv5rxFKOIFcAX167/3eKx5HfAgwOwvk1LJmTBEmxfclPq ejpRNgv/vcc/T8R+EAh0Iyiyhk7izlkTvgmBX/MF/DgU2HxfdTNEjtotpKHLvrhU UVra0EiuhU0jhRjEeT5W2YYAlXqJqRGZmMusLYGXcQP6yNlTc/WcZy8+mgoGSa2n h4Qj7E2kHQ== =Ad+S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86y19pluer.fsf>