Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:47:43 +0200 From: "Vlad K." <vlad-fbsd@acheronmedia.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <aeaf1b9804c806947515efadcfd26cd5@acheronmedia.com> In-Reply-To: <1498210501.2506.6.camel@gmail.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <cc1c38a4-108c-5f3f-7fa1-400fdcf497f6@freebsd.org> <ee6fe33b-aa24-ae5f-f652-f940e15c247a@jetcafe.org> <1498157001.2235.1.camel@gmail.com> <ffe23575-09a8-9e8c-ab21-772ca5e71aa1@jetcafe.org> <1498206372.2506.1.camel@gmail.com> <00d078be50a83b6e18ef20bfe76e30ca@acheronmedia.hr> <1498210501.2506.6.camel@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2017-06-23 11:35, demelier.david@gmail.com wrote: > > Release branches do not need backports. I think we have different concepts of "backport" here. I'm not talking about backports as defined by debian backports repository. I'm talking about taking a piece of code from NEWER version and turning it into a patch for OLDER version. Unless you mean that release branches would get no fixes, period? That's.... well, "svn checkout" and don't touch it ever again :) That's the only way to deal with security/bug fixes for ports that mix new features (that may break things) with fixes, when they release a new version. Either that, or you simply bump the version and get both the fixes AND new features.... but that's what's being done with QUARTERLY now, and we're back to square one. -- Vlad K.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aeaf1b9804c806947515efadcfd26cd5>