Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:46:04 +0200 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "stable" ports? Message-ID: <4BB1E47C.30203@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d1003300030q34d9a839l9d3e44ce24405d@mail.gmail.com> References: <hoqikd$o2h$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100329172753.GB39715@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <hoqrtp$u16$1@dough.gmane.org> <7d6fde3d1003300018gf395446g703cd287c6265a76@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d1003300026qa537f77j239931591b64e7e@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d1003300030q34d9a839l9d3e44ce24405d@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 30.03.2010 09:30, schrieb Garrett Cooper: > If this is really slick and tinderbox / whatever tools is doing its > job and no PRs have been reported for X number of days on a given port > (would require tie-ins to GNATS, or whatever), perhaps it would be > nice if ports were automatically `promoted' from HEAD to STABLE? I > mean, why do something if a computer can do it for you, right :)? It appears you're proposing the Debian style of management, which has a stable branch, a testing branch and an unstable branch. Packages usually propagate from unstable to testing under certain preconditions. -- Matthias Andree
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BB1E47C.30203>