From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Thu Jun 22 21:11:29 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@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 91441D9492E
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:11:29 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D30365AAE
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:11:29 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix)
 id 7C4F4D9492D; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:11:29 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: ports@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 7A392D9492C
 for <ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:11:29 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [192.108.105.60])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mail.soaustin.net",
 Issuer "StartCom Class 2 IV Server CA" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59C6065AAD
 for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:11:28 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from lonesome.com (bones.soaustin.net [192.108.105.22])
 by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 030D9734;
 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:28 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
To: scratch65535@att.net
Cc: freebsd-ports <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version
Message-ID: <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com>
References: <CAO+PfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD+8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net>
 <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com>
 <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net>
 <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:11:29 -0000

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535@att.net wrote:
> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing
> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be
> a Really Good Thing for everyone.

I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the
mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being
available once per release, or rolling with -head.

In other words, the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

tl;dr: there is no way to satisfy everyone.

mcl