Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 21:29:01 +0100 From: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> To: Nuno Teixeira <eduardo@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Best practice to bump consumers portrevision on quarterly Message-ID: <a5r0-5kdu-wny@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAFDf7UKFNP7yFDnTE0vp5-fJNUy0fkV3xUc672jauZPt4q%2B0_g@mail.gmail.com> (Nuno Teixeira's message of "Thu, 23 Nov 2023 11:30:21 %2B0000") References: <CAFDf7UKFNP7yFDnTE0vp5-fJNUy0fkV3xUc672jauZPt4q%2B0_g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nuno Teixeira <eduardo@freebsd.org> writes: > Hello, > > What is the correct way of bumping consumers in quarterly? > > 1. cherry-pick port update > 2. bump portrevision consumers on quarterly directly? Cherry-pick both. To overcome merge conflicts reset index and bump directly. The important part is to retain the commit message with cherry-pick annotation. $ git cherry-pick -x $ git checkout @ . $ xargs -n1 portedit bump-revision -i </path/to/port.list $ git add -u $ git cherry-pick --continue Direct commits are intended mainly when branches diverge too much. Ideally, those should be also annotated[1] with rationale why cherry-pick wasn't considered (PITA enough to discourage direct commits). [1] https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/committers-guide/#_considerations_when_mfcing "Clearly mark direct commits ..." but ports/ tree is a probably more sloppy upholding this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a5r0-5kdu-wny>