Date: 03 Sep 2002 14:41:13 -0700 From: John Merryweather Cooper <john_m_cooper@yahoo.com> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Putting mozilla-1.0 back in the tree Message-ID: <1031089275.1735.53.camel@PC016247.reshall.uidaho.edu> In-Reply-To: <1031084580.330.13.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> References: <1031083190.330.3.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> <1031084507.1735.30.camel@PC016247.reshall.uidaho.edu> <1031084580.330.13.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, I'm not really arguing the point. :) Incrementing PORTEPOCH is the correct thing to do though. A HEADS UP when it's occurring so those of us who want to stay with 1.1 can would be real nice. jmc On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 13:23, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 16:21, John Merryweather Cooper wrote: > > Well, while I can see why why Mozilla 1.1 would be considered "bleeding > > edge" (it has a lot of extra features), and I can see why some would > > prefer Mozilla 1.0.x (because features cause bulk, etc.), to me, 1.1 is > > the release. For instance, the browser that IBM brands and releases for > > OS/2 is Mozilla 1.1 (which is on my lap top at the moment). Since I > > like my (two) different platforms to have similar browsers, I'd be > > inclined to a -stable and -current distinction. But people get all > > wrapped up about vocabulary, so that's not critical. > > The bleeding edge thing comes right off of www.mozilla.org: > > "This is our latest bleeding edge release which contains all the changes > that happened on the trunk since we branched for Mozilla 1.0." > > Joe > > > > > The bottom line is that I like 1.1 (I just wish the performance of 1.1 > > with respect to Java was as fast on FreeBSD as it is on OS/2). > > > > YMMV. > > > > jmc > > > > On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 12:59, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > I'm in the process of putting Mozilla 1.0 back in the tree as > > > www/mozilla, and moving Mozilla 1.1 to www/mozilla-devel. It seems from > > > the Mozilla release cycle diagram that they are planning a Mozilla 1.0.1 > > > and, if necessary, a 1.0.2 release, and 1.1 is still "bleeding edge." > > > > > > To that end, I have a question. Should I bump the PORTEPOCH of > > > www/mozilla again, or just nudge people who upgraded to change the > > > origin of mozilla 1.1 to mozilla-devel? I think the latter, but I > > > wanted to get some feedback on this. Thanks. > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message > > -- > > _ > > | |V| / ' || MacroHard -- \ > > \_| | | \_, || the perfection of form over | > > ----------------------------------|| substance, marketing over | > > Web: http://www.borgsdemons.com || performance, and greed over | > > AIM: johnmcooper || design . . . | > > Yahoo: john_m_cooper || | > > =====================================================================/ > > Public Key: http://www.borgsdemons.com/Personal/pgpkey.asc | > > =====================================================================\ > > > > -- _ | |V| / ' || MacroHard -- \ \_| | | \_, || the perfection of form over | ----------------------------------|| substance, marketing over | Web: http://www.borgsdemons.com || performance, and greed over | AIM: johnmcooper || design . . . | Yahoo: john_m_cooper || | =====================================================================/ Public Key: http://www.borgsdemons.com/Personal/pgpkey.asc | =====================================================================\ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1031089275.1735.53.camel>