Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:28:40 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> To: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PORTVERSION=1.0.0b Message-ID: <4FB945E8.1080603@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo839p4ongYuW9h-qZsDaE=XRM5ETN5rjSrNmp-mMov8LfPw@mail.gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/20/12 3:25 PM, Chris Rees wrote: >> any porters handbook, committers habndbook documentation on that? as in why >> > '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? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FB945E8.1080603>