Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:26:10 -0500 From: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Resolve joe/joe-devel ports Message-ID: <65D8D7A7-D7E4-48B5-9C37-D9C745B739E4@dragondata.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
A bit of history about the "joe" editor ports... Around 5 years ago, I took over maintaining the "editors/joe" port. 2.8 was the most recent version then, and editors/joe hasn't been updated since. A few years after the release of 2.8, 2.9.xx and 3.xx versions of joe started appearing on sourceforge. Joseph Allen (joe's developer) had told me that 2.8 was the most recent "official" version of joe. He didn't mind the fork, but said that he planned on returning to develop the official branch of joe later. Eventually the 3.xx branches of joe started adding desirable features. I didn't want to mess with the official "editors/joe" port, since the changes were made on an unofficial fork, and the main branch was supposed to start being developed again. So, "editors/joe- devel" was created to track the 3.xx fork on Sourceforge. Fast forward to today, now. Joseph Allen has now joined the sourceforge project, and says that the 2.9 and 3.x branches on there are now the official versions, and that 2.8 should be phased out. This is what I'd propose: Rename editors/joe to editors/joe2 and upgrade it to joe 2.9 (2.9 is functionally the same as 2.8, but comes with some bug fixes and a better install/configure system) Rename editors/joe-devel to editors/joe and upgrade it to 3.2 (it's currently 2 months behind the current version, at 3.1) I'm the "joe" maintainer, and Pete (cc'ed) is the joe-devel maintainer. Any thoughts/comments?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?65D8D7A7-D7E4-48B5-9C37-D9C745B739E4>