RELEASE_x_y_EOL ports tags [Was: Re: Who was the mental genius]

[Darren Pilgrim]

On 6/5/2014 6:05 PM, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:09:53 -0500
> Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists at tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> That decided it was a good idea to completely break ports to force
>> people to upgrade?  You couldn't come up with a warning system
>> instead of outright breaking ports?  The idiots are apparently
>> running the asylum.  {{sigh}}
>>
>
> this is the reason why I am asking for versions on the ports tree since
> a decade. Ok, we have the revision now. Just go back in the revision
> until it works. It is a good practice to make a note of the revision of
> the running ports tree you have before updating it.

We do have that.  We have RELEASE_X_EOL tags that identify the last 
known-good ports tree for a given major branch.  Unfortunately, this 
time the break happened in the middle of the 8.x lifespan, so there is 
no handy EOL tag.

Perhaps a RELEASE_x_y_EOL tag would be a useful thing to add whenever 
there is a break like this?  It certainly would be an easier mnemonic to 
say "check out the RELEASE_8_3_EOL tag" instead of "check out R112358". 
  Hell, the prior's even self-documenting if someone happened to stumble 
across http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/tags/.

We already have tags going back through 20 years of releases (just in 
case you want a ports tree that works with release 2.0.5) and an 
established policy of tagging for "last known good" at the major level. 
  I don't think a few more tags are going to hurt if it saves someone 
the hassle of dancing up to the line of an API/ABI break.