From owner-cvs-all Tue Jul 21 09:43:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA24318 for cvs-all-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:43:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA24291; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:43:38 -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 JAA09357; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:42:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports INDEX In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:20:59 PDT." <199807211620.JAA23153@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:42:30 -0700 Message-ID: <9353.901039350@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Bah, this is really bogus since the src tree (and Rod Grimes, from day one) instituted a convention that release engineers would label their tags RELENG_FOO for the reasons outlined below. I see now that this was broken at 2.2.1 when somebody, for reasons unknown, decided to use a totally different tag name. This means, for one thing, that I can't modify the release/Makefile bits to check ports out of the ports collection using the very same tag. In fact, this has led to the ports collection tag being essentially *ignored* from the release build's perspective (go look) and if someone breaks the ports collection before I roll the release, tag or no tag, then it will break. That makes the tag useful only for cosmetic purposes and is something quite bogus indeed - it makes only my job and the ports people's jobs that much harder. Since we've already got 4 (soon to be 5) RELEASE_n_n_n instances in the ports collection, I'm not going to vote that we change them now but I WILL say that I intend to use: RELENG_3_0_0_RELEASE For both src and ports when we do 3.0 on October 15th and I intend to modify release/Makefile accordingly to take advantage of this fact. For all of 2.1, we never tagged the ports tree and this late addition to the tagging paradigm was simply not done correctly or at least was done by someone who didn't think it all the way through. We *should* be able to tag the ports tree and then lift the freeze immediately afterwards, and but for one silly difference in the tag name would probably be doing so already (and no, I don't feel like updating two tag names in release/Makefile when I can have just one with even greater easy, thank you very much :-). - Jordan > * Erm, RELENG_2_2_7_RELEASE :-) > * > * That's the same tag format we've used for src and I think it'd only be > * confusing to use a different one for ports. Also, the RELENG_ > * designator lets you know just who PUT that tag there. :-) > > I disagree, it is intentional, and it was our CVS-meisters who decided > this. There is no RELENG_* branch on the ports tree. > > Also, changing the tag format at this point, after four of them have > already been put down, is inconsistent. > > Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message