Bug 194646

Summary: [maintainer update] devel/ruby-build: update to 20141028
Product: Ports & Packages Reporter: Koichiro Iwao <meta>
Component: Individual Port(s)Assignee: Bartek Rutkowski <robak>
Status: Closed FIXED    
Severity: Affects Only Me CC: meta, robak
Priority: ---    
Version: Latest   
Hardware: Any   
OS: Any   
Description Flags
20141028 has been released none

Description Koichiro Iwao freebsd_committer 2014-10-28 01:39:37 UTC
Created attachment 148721 [details]

subject describes all
Comment 1 Koichiro Iwao freebsd_committer 2014-10-30 00:42:44 UTC
Created attachment 148783 [details]
20141028 has been released
Comment 2 commit-hook freebsd_committer 2014-10-30 09:37:56 UTC
A commit references this bug:

Author: robak
Date: Thu Oct 30 09:37:24 UTC 2014
New revision: 371728
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/371728

  devel/ruby-build: update 20140926 -> 20141028

  PR:		194646
  Submitted by:	Koichiro Iwao <meta+ports@vmeta.jp>
  Approved by:	mentors (implicit)

Comment 3 Bartek Rutkowski freebsd_committer 2014-10-30 09:44:24 UTC
Committed, thanks for your work! By the way, the next time you'll be sending PR with an update, please, consider correcting the PORTVERSION as described at the bottom of that document: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html
Comment 4 Koichiro Iwao freebsd_committer 2014-10-30 12:19:01 UTC
I just obey ruby-build's versioning.  YYYYMMDD is upstream official version.  Please see tags in repository.
Comment 5 Koichiro Iwao freebsd_committer 2014-10-30 12:30:05 UTC
I meant I'm not using date instead of version number since upstream has no information.  They uses YYYYMMDD as official version number.  Should I have to use 0.0.yyyy.mm.dd in such case?