Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:38:44 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> Cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, Edward Wolpert <wolpert@methodsystems.com>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Andreas Klemm <andreas@FreeBSD.ORG>, Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/databases/p5-DBD-Pg Makefile ports/databas Message-ID: <20000827233844.A39318@titan.klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <20000827170553.V57333@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from billf@chimesnet.com on Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 05:05:53PM -0400 References: <20000827202609.A29786@titan.klemm.gtn.com> <XFMail.000827125205.wolpert@methodsystems.com> <20000827152643.U57333@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000827225820.A37044@titan.klemm.gtn.com> <20000827170553.V57333@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 05:05:53PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 10:58:21PM +0200, Andreas Klemm wrote:
>
> > Excuse me, but why do we then have/take the extra overhead
> > of a repository copy if a new/parallel port with version numer
> > is only intended to have a short/temporary lifetime ?
>
> So we don't force beta/current/bleeding edge ports on our users.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, wrong: we do that by simply providing a separate port.
But for that purpose we don't need a repository copy, if
postgresql7 will be moved later into postgresql.
> > Then repository copies doesn't make sense and all the involved
> > work so far would be for nuts and additionally pollutes the
> > Attic for no reason !
>
> Well, if the port never made it in a release, it doesn't pollute.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand this. Lets be more specific. If we would
now commit in postgresql bits and bytes of the postgresql7
port, then the CVS history of the old postgresql port which is
now in the postgresql7 port (in the Attic) is completely useless
and useless overhead ...
Since trhe postgresql7 port was only needed for a short transition
time and intended to replace postgresql 6 sooner or later ...
> In any event, the gain of having a stable and current port outways
> the cost of the repository copy. pgsql7 is now the stable port,
> so it goes into postgresql.
Please seperate the steps
- providing a -stable and -current release of a port (or whatever reason
exists for multiple instances of a port)
- and the additional overhead of making _additionally_ a repository
copy.
The last step is useless, since the CVS history of the old port
always can be found in the "postgresql" port. And when the postgresql7
bits and bytes should be moved to postgresql sooner or later.
Its more efficient then, to have only the postgresql7 ports CVS history
under postgresql7.
I hope I was understandable.
Andreas ///
--
Andreas Klemm Powered by FreeBSD SMP
Songs from our band >>64Bits<<............http://www.apsfilter.org/64bits.html
My homepage................................ http://people.FreeBSD.ORG/~andreas
Please note: Apsfilter got a NEW HOME................http://www.apsfilter.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000827233844.A39318>