On 02 June 2012 PM 9:50:22 Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> > The point he made was actually not a matter of people not reading
> > UPDATING but that UPDATING is oftentimes not updated until after
> > the disruptive/potentially dangerous change has already hit the
> > ports tree.
> > I'm not sure what the solution is for the end user.
> We have our reference hosts, do daily portupgrades and on those days
> where all looks fine, pkg_create the whole collection and pkg_delete/pkg_add
> to production hosts.
> Still not perfect, but 'good enough'.
isn't this what I just suggested to be done by the team? Give the ports tree a new version number and people can fall back to this then.