"stable" ports?

[Ivan Voras]

On 30 March 2010 09:30, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry -- one last thing to kick around before I get off this topic:
>
> If this is really slick and tinderbox / whatever tools is doing its
> job and no PRs have been reported for X number of days on a given port
> (would require tie-ins to GNATS, or whatever), perhaps it would be
> nice if ports were automatically `promoted' from HEAD to STABLE? I
> mean, why do something if a computer can do it for you, right :)?

No, not really - what if the new port contains a version bump?

I don't consider "stable" as in "builds and works" good enough, it
really needs to be kept in a sane state with regards to version bumps,
shared libs bumps, etc.