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...

[mdf at FreeBSD.org]

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?

Thanks,
matthew