Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 09:21:42 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, "Drewery, Bryan" <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r266760 - head/contrib/bmake Message-ID: <8AF17138-4C5B-4298-829E-CC2B98178DAC@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <538FE18E.7050101@freebsd.org> References: <201405271839.s4RIdDq8055387@svn.freebsd.org> <538D1DB7.7010508@FreeBSD.org> <20140603044638.81DF6580A1@chaos.jnpr.net> <20140603063512.GB45150@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <CAF6rxgnNLGWtGJwUY9E-MquqrOaU221QXjcow-sKCJLo4hxuLQ@mail.gmail.com> <538F3918.6040002@FreeBSD.org> <538FE18E.7050101@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 4, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 6/4/14, 11:19 PM, Drewery, Bryan wrote: >> On 6/4/14, 2:26 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> On 2 June 2014 23:35, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:46:38PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:58:31 -0500, Bryan Drewery writes: >>>>>> Not sure if anyone cares, but this change breaks all ports tree >>>>>> checkouts from before 2014-05-05 on src head with this revision. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Yes, an older ports tree would need an older bmake (or fmake). >>>>> Are we saying ports is *not* ready for that hack to be removed? >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> IMHO it is, just people has to be aware of that :) >>>=20 >>> ports-announce@ is the correct location for this announcement :) >>>=20 >>=20 >> I think that would just confuse people. I don't think this is worthy = of such a big announcement. I can write up something to current@ and = ports@ though. It's really only an issue if you are trying to use older = ports tree and why would you anyway in most cases? >>=20 > We have a scenario where we check out a ports tree at one revision, = but then need to slide parts of it back and forth to get to a specific = revision of a port that we need. We can not affort to re-verrify every = port revision every month, so it stays at an old revision generally but = individual ports my upgrade if there is a security risk or may remain on = anold revision if a newer version breaks thins for us. (it happens). >=20 > If that breaks we will not be happy I plan on reverting this because it is premature. Too many people have = their own forked ports trees that haven=92t necessarily been updated. = The update is simple, true enough, but it is surprising. There=92s no = harm in leaving that code there for a while longer since it is opt-in = now. I may add a warning to highlight its use... Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8AF17138-4C5B-4298-829E-CC2B98178DAC>