Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:12:10 -0500 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: gahr@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r307833 - head/x11-toolkits/fox16 Message-ID: <CAGFTUwNEm-ZZBu_a0NNQrfQJA5uX%2BOcXPX8j3=WghdevWJBQXQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121127124512.GJ53110@gahrfit.gahr.ch> References: <201211271108.qARB8u5F050244@svn.freebsd.org> <CAGFTUwOf%2BzsEP0jKBXfpgPMM0u1OwDNrA0pYJdqoZiTjJrQj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <20121127124512.GJ53110@gahrfit.gahr.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/27/12, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2012-Nov-27, 07:37, b. f. wrote: >> On 11/27/12, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > Author: gahr >> > Date: Tue Nov 27 11:08:55 2012 >> > New Revision: 307833 >> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/307833 >> > >> > Log: >> > - Update to 1.6.47 >> > * Prototype of wndproc() was not correct for 64-bit Windows. >> > - Remove shlib versions from LIB_DEPENDS >> > >> > Feature safe: yes >> >> I'm confused: we have changes like this that clearly aren't feature >> safe going into the tree without explicit permission from portmgr, and >> Ken stating that the release was moving forward with only a limited >> set of packages. So is the ports tree still frozen, or not? > > Well I didn't see it as a sweeping change, since only a handful of ports > were changed. I guess personal judgment is needed to sort out > > "A sweeping change is a commit that would affect a non-trivial number of > packages" > > from > > "shared library version bumps" (which are said to qualify as sweep > commits) > > In this case, only a few (and small) ports were affected, which is why I > went forward. Could we have a clear and explicit statement from portmgr about what is permitted? I don't mean to pick on Pietro: this question keeps coming up. A number of us have been using the rule of thumb that any non-cosmetic change that affects more than one default package isn't possible without permission. If there is a lesser standard, or if the tree should be considered frozen only for a subset of packages that will be on the release media, then I can start making a few changes that some users have requested. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGFTUwNEm-ZZBu_a0NNQrfQJA5uX%2BOcXPX8j3=WghdevWJBQXQ>