Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:10:08 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r216483 - head Message-ID: <20101217171008.000010b5@unknown> In-Reply-To: <20101216135547.B6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <201012161158.oBGBwoep051709@svn.freebsd.org> <20101216135547.B6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:22:30 +0000 (UTC) "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> wrote: [descsription of the original ordering] > I think grouping by date and then by file/lib/dir is actually better > as it'll keep things logically together rather than possibly splitting > it over 3 sections? As the person who did the initial ordering: whatever makes sense. Way back when I did it, the original ordering made some things more easy. Now that the lists grown very big, everyone is welcome to change it to something which makes sense today. BTW: Should or should we not remove old entries which are way beyond what we support, e.g. files from 2nd previous branches? The idea behind is, that this prevents to have an abnormal big list of old stuff, and that an update from e.g. 6 to 8 is not supported, so people need to go from 6 to 7, can delete old stuff, update to 8 and delete again old stuff. I am aware that people would have to rebuild all ports on 7 and on 8 again, if they want to update libs. I am not sure if this matters. If it matters, what about removing stuff which is from a 3rd previous branch, e.g. if we delete on 8 it will remove outdated files from 7 and 6, but not from 5? Bye, Alexander.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101217171008.000010b5>