From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Tue Jun 6 13:34:59 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26869B959FF for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 13:34:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from r@robakdesign.com) Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com (mail-wm0-f65.google.com [74.125.82.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9EB467EBB for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 13:34:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from r@robakdesign.com) Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id g15so34915571wmc.2 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 06:34:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Nn5tXFRkk3RGMkboTbm4fHlPldX/tbAgYxkbb1iFyhQ=; b=oJKhI9QB8Ev7VPH7mIR77jd40wE1ghyC9O1+gcgXd36+nkEZi65r3sQcIc4fvvlYH0 PxEpDJEiNIa/vp6Cb7u7lDzf02ZrejEodJGw9iPuxbsm9cDw7lRco6oI7KE7f+xnHuM8 z850F8ROkwfEByBqUC9mIK96M7zG5EFWxCYgHCcSLySQAFgBtWRWkjjTa61L/rulN0zA Fxi92Szx7cDTBex4Rv42n+hSD1sIfH3QTGQP3dyhL7oDjGYjq5bqPq/DdOhkMgHqE8e7 2CZGNLwIUFdNtAurnwDZovXlqL7mqjuDXtvX080rVDkiXGTwtV2BVTVkYSDkbATMpnyr xNaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAiufwS6INHh8hZ/gTBmDoLUJiSUEIhUj+LDp0G5KF8YSNhieXY P3PLrHL4M2XIrojc X-Received: by 10.28.158.134 with SMTP id h128mr10722957wme.99.1496756096432; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 06:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.62] (host86-169-146-243.range86-169.btcentralplus.com. [86.169.146.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y42sm2684975wrc.51.2017.06.06.06.34.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Jun 2017 06:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r442588 - in head/www: nginx nginx-full From: Bartek Rutkowski In-Reply-To: <20170606093911.GA98412@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:34:54 +0100 Cc: Adam Weinberger , "Sergey A. Osokin" , Adam Weinberger , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201706042038.v54KcQMf001482@repo.freebsd.org> <20170605001807.GA55217@FreeBSD.org> <20170606093911.GA98412@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:34:59 -0000 > On 6 Jun 2017, at 10:39, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:50:06PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 4 Jun, 2017, at 18:18, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi Bartek and Adam, >>>=20 >>> I don't think I can get this, so two questions for you guys: >>> o) what was the reason to bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx? >>> o) wouldn't it btter to just bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx-full? >>=20 >> Hi Sergey, >=20 > [ Wrapping very long lines ] >=20 >> I'll give Bartek a chance to explain in more detail, but I supported = an >> nginx bump because it was less complex for the future. >>=20 >> If nginx-full got a bump, then it would need to be bumped every time >> nginx got bumped, or nginx would have to be bumped by two and = nginx-full's >> PORTREVISION line gets removed, and then the line has to be removed = at the >> next nginx update or reset. At the end of the day, bumping nginx was = more >> straightforward. It triggers an update for everyone else, but becomes = less >> invasive over the long haul. >=20 > It seems that everyone bumps port revisions whenever they please these = days; > wondering about it just a waste of time. Just an exampler: r442562, = where > it was bumped for pkg-descr change (sic!) in a port that takes = considerable > time to build. :-( >=20 > ./danfe This wasn't the case here, so I'd take your comment as a general one ;) = I can't speak for reasons behind other bumps, so I won't, but I am = personally aware of the docs on when the bump should happen and I try to = adhere to these. When in doubt, I seek inspiration in portmgr members = and their insight was promptly provided every time, including this one. Kind regards, Bartek Rutkowski=