From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 29 00:30:07 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E83106564A for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083838FC0A for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:30:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o8T0U53U001365; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:30:05 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id o8T0U55H001362; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:30:05 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:30:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Wesley Shields In-Reply-To: <20100928235321.GB93659@atarininja.org> Message-ID: References: <20100928235321.GB93659@atarininja.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:30:06 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Idea: entries in UPDATING for each release X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:30:07 -0000 On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Wesley Shields wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:07:08PM -0600, Warren Block wrote: >> Right now, people who install ports from a -release CD and then start >> upgrading don't have a clear marker for how far back to go in UPDATING. >> >> A simple entry would be enough: >> >> 20100703: >> AFFECTS: >> AUTHOR: >> >> FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE >> >> Not sure what AFFECTS should say. There might be other useful >> information that could be included in the note. Comments? > > I'm certainly not opposed to the idea but what exactly do we use for a > date? When the tree is tagged? When the release media is finalized and > published to mirrors? What about tag slippage? Do we account for that? It's probably not too critical as long as the note is before the post-release thaw and subsequent major updates. The existing UPDATING around the time of 8.1-RELEASE has entries for 20100626 and then 20100715. It was eleven days after 8.1-RELEASE that the next note was added, so at least for that example, timing isn't very tight. > If the only goal is to get a rough idea of when a release was cut then > either when the tree is tagged or when the media is pushed out to > mirrors is probably sufficient. Sounds fine.