Re: git: 082542e6c694 - 2024Q1 - */*: Chase editors/emacs update
- In reply to: Joseph Mingrone : "Re: git: 082542e6c694 - 2024Q1 - */*: Chase editors/emacs update"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 03:32:28 UTC
On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 22:00, Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 19:53, "Jason E. Hale" <jhale@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:32 PM Joseph Mingrone <jrm@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 19:13, "Jason E. Hale" <jhale@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:57 PM Joseph Mingrone <jrm@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >> The branch 2024Q1 has been updated by jrm: >>> >> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=082542e6c694d58c24d1c425c9f06441c6a16db7 >>> >> commit 082542e6c694d58c24d1c425c9f06441c6a16db7 >>> >> Author: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> >>> >> AuthorDate: 2024-01-26 14:13:34 +0000 >>> >> Commit: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> >>> >> CommitDate: 2024-03-26 23:41:02 +0000 >>> >> */*: Chase editors/emacs update >>> >> - Bump Emacs version in Mk/Uses/emacs.mk to update version-specific >>> >> paths >>> >> - Bump PORTREVISION of ports with USES=emacs. This is required for two >>> >> reasons. Emacs lisp files need to be byte compiled for the new Emacs >>> >> version, and files installed under, e.g., EMACS_VERSION_SITE_LISPDIR >>> >> need to be relocated. >>> >> Reviewed by: ashish >>> >> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation >>> >> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D43615 >>> >> (cherry picked from commit ab463bdca9c29ec22be0c7e6d7aa27bb2a980b48) >>> >> --- >>> > Hi, >>> > You bumped more than PORTREVISION on several ports with this cherry >>> > pick, leading to breakage in the 2024Q1 branch since the >>> > (POR|DIS)TVERSIONs no longer match distinfo. >>> > - Jason >>> My apologies if I messed up the resolution of some of the many merge >>> conflicts. I'll take a closer look this weekend, but since we're now in >>> Q2, from a user perspective, isn't this now moot? >>> J. >> Considering the delay in cutting the 2024Q2 branch, I don't think it's >> moot to fix errors in the current quarterly branch which is still >> 2024Q1 at time of writing. Had the Q2 branch already been cut, I >> wouldn't have received the numerous pkg-fallout emails that caused me >> to investigate this in the first place, so I'm not pointing this out >> just to be petty. :) I'm not sure how much longer we'll be on Q1, so I >> think the responsible thing to do would be to revert the >> PORTVERSION/DISTVERSION changes for audio/emms, devel/clojure-cider, >> and mail/anubis. For mail/anubis, the PORTREVISION should then be 18, >> because it was 17 before this change. > I only had a few minutes to write the last email and didn't have a > chance to check the quarterly branch status and just assumed Q2 had been > cut. I'm working on fixing things now and will loop you in soon. I reverted the changes for the messed-up ports and just gave them a PORTREVISION bump. As an aside, I think this is a good example of why another discussion on the costs versus benefits of having a quarterly branch is warranted. Ashish rightfully merged a security update for editors/emacs, but many ports would have been broken without a PORTREVISION bump. Merging the commits for the PORTREVSION bumps was a pain because of the divergence between the branches. I believe the results of the recent community survey will be released soon. If I recall correctly, something in the range of 15% of respondents prefer infrequent package updates. I think that begs the question whether maintaining two port branches is worth the effort. Joe