Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:09:58 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, mdf@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r220755 - in head: . contrib/gcc/doc contrib/gcc/objc contrib/libobjc etc/mtree gnu/lib gnu/lib/libobjc gnu/usr.bin/cc gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1obj gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_tools gnu/usr.bin/cc/doc s... Message-ID: <2B6A971D-432F-4330-9BAB-48CAE89FF571@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <201104191129.30602.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201104172103.p3HL3Ntb049564@svn.freebsd.org> <201104190840.29535.jhb@freebsd.org> <BANLkTinh6X=Rzwokr3OMPo4k3=jOjkL47g@mail.gmail.com> <201104191129.30602.jhb@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:29 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:28:23 am mdf@freebsd.org wrote: >> Trimming since I have a mostly-unrelated question... >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:40 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> On Monday, April 18, 2011 3:59:45 pm Warner Losh wrote: >>>> In this case, there was a new kernel thing just after, so it turned out OK. >>>> But let's not gratuitously bump the version since the granularity we have >>>> already allows the ports to make good choices on when to leave something in or >>>> out. >>> >>> Except that that directly contradicts our previously established policy that >>> these version bumps are cheap and that we should do more of them (this came up >>> a few years ago when we changed the policy so that the new "stable" branch >>> after a release starts at N + 500 (e.g. 802500) rather than N + 100 to give >>> more room for version bumps on current). >> >> I thought I remembered reading (within the past 2 years) that >> __FreeBSD_version should not be incremented more than once a day, >> since there was a limit of 100 before the version minor number was >> affected. Did I get the polarity backwards and that was the old >> policy? > > Well, I would avoid more than once a day still, but the 100 limit is now 500 > in 8.0 and later (we had more than 100 bumps during 8.0-current which resulted > in a discussion where we chose to raise the limit to 500 rather than > discourage bumps in current). There were times in the 8.x release train when I got hit by this problem a lot. I'd update to get a fix in some other part of the tree, and there's be another bump even though I had compiled a kernel just hours before. While I can live it it from time to time, there was a stretch where it happened to me all the time and it wound up costing me a substantial portion of a working week. It is all about windows. If there's a small window since the last bump, please biggy back on it. If there isn't, by all means bump. I'd tune small measured in days rather than a single day, since it is rare that ports need to know with such precision when something happened and small windows tend to impact fewer people than the bumps do. Warnerhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2B6A971D-432F-4330-9BAB-48CAE89FF571>