From owner-cvs-all Thu Oct 15 19:11:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA17472 for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:11:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA17453 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:11:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA10912 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:11:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Tag will go down at 20:30 PDT Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 19:11:29 -0700 Message-ID: <10908.908503889@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk I've moved it up a half hour to give a few folks just a bit more time, but that's when it will be. I'll be turning commits off (how do we do that again? :) around this time and flipping them back on after the tag is completed. Again, I will *not* be tagging the ports tree in order to give those folks a bit more time. It's also not critical (for me) that ports be tagged since the release builds have never used tags in extracting ports. Even if I tagged ports now, any subsequent builds I did after sliding various tags on src forward would simply grab the -current ports tree and the tag would be essentially ignored. It's only for reference purposes, I guess. Never did understand the logic of tagging the ports tree (with a completely different tag, no less) anyway. :-) In any case, just FYI! - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message