On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:28:23 am m...@freebsd.org wrote: > Trimming since I have a mostly-unrelated question... > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:40 AM, John Baldwin <j...@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 _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
