Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:30:16 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PORTVERSION=1.0.0b Message-ID: <CADLo83_wvxXrw1x5YHt8jDYmk49Y1WQ22VmHme2VgK4KLMqtVg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB945E8.1080603@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FB8E67C.5030001@FreeBSD.org> <4FB90160.9060002@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FB9437D.5050804@FreeBSD.org> <4FB943B0.6040501@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo839p4ongYuW9h-qZsDaE=XRM5ETN5rjSrNmp-mMov8LfPw@mail.gmail.com> <4FB945E8.1080603@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 May 2012 20:28, Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 5/20/12 3:25 PM, Chris Rees wrote: >>> >>> any porters handbook, committers habndbook documentation on that? as in >>> why >>> > =A0'1.0.0.b' is preferred over '1.0.0b'? >> >> Because as much as possible, we try to standardise things like version >> numbers and rc scripts, so people get a more consistent experience, >> rather than bowing to the particular upstream/maintainer's view of how >> versions work. >> > so, we need to update committers/porters handbook, or is this some secret > thing? another of those 'we won't document it, but we sure as hell will > publically lart you if you disobay the unspoken, undocumented secred code= ?' > > or, like I asked 'I need to give a link to submitter to show him this is = the > best way to do it'. > > I guess I wait till the email archive is finished and point him to chris'= s > post? Docs patches would be great; you know full well that most of this stuff isn't documented ;) Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_wvxXrw1x5YHt8jDYmk49Y1WQ22VmHme2VgK4KLMqtVg>