From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 11 12:54:51 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 6B5FB1065679; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:54:51 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:54:51 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20110111125451.GA72364@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201101110751.p0B7psXk085874@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20110111075157.D91781065788@hub.freebsd.org>
	<20110111091109.GB57172@FreeBSD.org>
	<AANLkTinCA6juUbRFnWXcYmz6uz-WmTrHzOqzAUPws82h@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110111122253.GC57172@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110111122253.GC57172@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, wen heping <wenheping@gmail.com>,
	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 12:54:51 -0000

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:22:53PM +0000, Sergey A. Osokin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 05:36:26PM +0800, wen heping wrote:
> > PORTEPOCH was not bumped by me.
> > Or you mean I shall bump PORTEPOCH ?
> 
> I think you should bump PORTEPOCH as described in [PH].
> But danfe@ said this is unnecessary in this case.

Let me elaborate a bit.  Technically, PORTEPOCH must be bumped when
version has to go backwards to facilitate the upgrade (which is really a
downgrade).  Also, we generally try to avoid PORTEPOCHs, because once
they committed, they can never go away.  Since there is usually small
window between change committed to pcvs and propagated to the mirrors
around the world, sometimes people omit bumping PORTEPOCH "while no one
is watching".

However, this is playing with fire.  There is no guarantee that someone
sneaky won't csup and portupgrade in the "wrong" time.  So the best way
to avoid unnecessary PORTEPOCH bumps is to test any update thoroughly,
or at least read the changelog to be confident there is no immediately
visible breakage.  Waiting a few days after release of major version or
substantial update to let the dust settle can also be very helpful.

./danfe