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? Thanks, matthew _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
