From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 19 15:30:59 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A45D1065670; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:30:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23148FC12; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F56046B55; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D7648A01B; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:58 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: mdf@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:29:30 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110325; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201104172103.p3HL3Ntb049564@svn.freebsd.org> <201104190840.29535.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201104191129.30602.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Cc: svn-src-head@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... X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:30:59 -0000 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 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). -- John Baldwin