Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:10:56 +0300 From: Andrej Zverev <az@freebsd.org> To: Erwin Lansing <erwin@freebsd.org>, Greg Larkin <glarkin@freebsd.org>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Mikhail Teterin <mi@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/websh Makefile Message-ID: <AANLkTimqCW62TDX4VHxfxB80_dJmnVTwv%2BgOu2r47ch4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110222165453.GH22667@droso.net> References: <201102220418.p1M4Idj6063729@repoman.freebsd.org> <4D63B796.3080406@FreeBSD.org> <20110222154854.GA18003@lonesome.com> <4D63DF94.1080209@FreeBSD.org> <20110222165453.GH22667@droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Erwin Lansing <erwin@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:08:52AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote: > > On 2/22/11 10:48 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:14AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote: > > >> Is it a good idea to decrement PORTREVISION after the previous commit > > >> has been in the tree for some number of hours? > > > > > > Nope. For instance, if a pointyhat run _had_ been started during that > > > window, the uploaded package would now be wrong. > > > > > > mcl > > > > What's the proper fix at this point - rebump to current PORTREVISION+2, > > or is a PORTEPOCH bump required? > > > Just reinstating it to PORTREVISON+1 should be good enough. There's no > need to get the, few, people that may have upgraded during the time to > upgrade again to +2. PKGVERSION needs to be the same or higher, it just > cannot go down. > > -erwin > How about to fix it? :-) > > -- > Erwin Lansing http://droso.org > Prediction is very difficult > especially about the future erwin@FreeBSD.org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimqCW62TDX4VHxfxB80_dJmnVTwv%2BgOu2r47ch4>