svn commit: r220755 - in head: . contrib/gcc/doc contrib/gcc/objc contrib/libobjc etc/mtree gnu/lib gnu/lib/libobjc gnu/usr.bin/cc gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1obj gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_tools gnu/usr.bin/cc/doc s...

John Baldwin jhb at freebsd.org
Tue Apr 19 15:30:59 UTC 2011


On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:28:23 am mdf at freebsd.org wrote:
> Trimming since I have a mostly-unrelated question...
> 
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:40 AM, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 18, 2011 3:59:45 pm Warner Losh wrote:
> >> In this case, there was a new kernel thing just after, so it turned out OK.
> >> But let's not gratuitously bump the version since the granularity we have
> >> already allows the ports to make good choices on when to leave something in or
> >> out.
> >
> > Except that that directly contradicts our previously established policy that
> > these version bumps are cheap and that we should do more of them (this came up
> > a few years ago when we changed the policy so that the new "stable" branch
> > after a release starts at N + 500 (e.g. 802500) rather than N + 100 to give
> > more room for version bumps on current).
> 
> I thought I remembered reading (within the past 2 years) that
> __FreeBSD_version should not be incremented more than once a day,
> since there was a limit of 100 before the version minor number was
> affected.  Did I get the polarity backwards and that was the old
> policy?

Well, I would avoid more than once a day still, but the 100 limit is now 500
in 8.0 and later (we had more than 100 bumps during 8.0-current which resulted
in a discussion where we chose to raise the limit to 500 rather than
discourage bumps in current).

-- 
John Baldwin


More information about the svn-src-all mailing list