From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 11 09:55:26 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 3E9D71065694; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:55:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:55:26 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20110111095526.GA47595@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201101110751.p0B7psXk085874@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20110111075157.D91781065788@hub.freebsd.org>
	<20110111091109.GB57172@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110111091109.GB57172@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: Wen Heping <wen@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: [ports] cvs commit: ports/devel/rubygem-stringex Makefile
	distinfo
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:55:26 -0000

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:11:09AM +0000, Sergey A. Osokin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:51:57AM +0000, Wen Heping wrote:
> > wen         2011-01-11 07:51:54 UTC
> > 
> >   Modified files:
> >     devel/rubygem-stringex Makefile distinfo 
> >   Log:
> >   - Revert my last commit to avoid break other ports.
> > 
> > --- ports/devel/rubygem-stringex/Makefile:1.4	Tue Jan 11 07:01:33 2011
> > +++ ports/devel/rubygem-stringex/Makefile	Tue Jan 11 07:51:54 2011
> > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> >  
> >  # XXX: datamapper requires exact version ~>
> >  PORTNAME=	stringex
> > -PORTVERSION=	1.2.0
> > +PORTVERSION=	1.1.0
> >  PORTEPOCH=	1
> 
> Does this changes (i.e. revert back) make sense to bump PORTEPOCH?

If the port was reverted quickly enough, it should be OK to skip the
rule.  Like here, it was done within an hour, which is probably OK.  But
the maintainer has final vote anyways.

./danfe