From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B55A139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:30:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A23DE0EA8; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23AA4E0D90 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:30:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 799B5341897; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:30:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1501021831.16994.8.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:30:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1500969906.1206.1.camel@gentoo.org> <0A428688-D128-4767-A9E5-E0F2D3004B18@gentoo.org> <5a155985-1ce4-9872-0259-b67520d9a867@gentoo.org> <1500988986.795.5.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-jgDzHqtEAg1HSza01VPI" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 9b15a865-7167-4629-9aa6-bc39fe489f04 X-Archives-Hash: cb036b42950d94ba99b71a0c0c9c98dc --=-jgDzHqtEAg1HSza01VPI Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wro= te: > > > On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > >=20 > > > > How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage > > > > 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't thi= nk of > > > > a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane to > > > > checkout one commit after another, and run @world upgrade in the mi= ddle > > > > of it. > > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Revisions are to indicate that one incarnation of a package differs f= rom > > > another in a way that the user or package manager might care about. A= nd > > > on principal, it's no business of yours what people want to do with > > > their tree. If someone wants to check out successive commits and emer= ge > > > @world, he's within his rights to do so. > >=20 > > I don't feel I should be obligated by policy to support this use case. > > One revbump per push seems sufficiently safe for 99.9% of users. > >=20 > > If you want to do more revbumps, you are free to do so. > >=20 >=20 > What is the point of separating changes by commits if we don't > generally try to keep each commit working? >=20 > Sure, there are some cases where it is just going to be too painful to > ensure that, and so it doesn't have to be an absolute rule. >=20 > However, if somebody is checking out a tree at some point in the past > they shouldn't have to try to figure out where the last push boundary > was to ensure that it is sane. Use cases for that include updating > older systems progressively, or bisecting a problem. Guys, please cut this FUD. Nothing is broken if you don't revbump. The only thing that doesn't happen is that the PM isn't obliged to suggest user to upgrade. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-jgDzHqtEAg1HSza01VPI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKmBAABCgCQFiEEbbsHzE8NrQbqCv5BsHoa6u+0Rk4FAll3xohfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDZE QkIwN0NDNEYwREFEMDZFQTBBRkU0MUIwN0ExQUVBRUZCNDQ2NEUSHG1nb3JueUBn ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJELB6GurvtEZOiiIP/RUJasMCQPQMeA/946TK58hsc78R41hq FE99cik3jnu4d7q/GP/JxJA+yBm7IJJfvLeOCjMBpSPJSoETSMNcrYwc89NaJUCq VIWT3rrA9AiEsRAT1VlD5VEfW96zD6tc9rENMnNPXuMtvMklsng+61bTsXL/ZZQ+ CtQ4oUdu0gXOYzD/x2UuFiwIHK6LceMiX4Wpsdeg//l6nTzunk4HwmYZhoplZnPW bkxut5kcDNS5xe+O749oCTSPmzh+L89JA/3zqkRmz+mWHiZlVn1UarSLng4DNQnP hBvQi1a9Zd5sKSamopCkP0O9K/UCIkqrWa4LZKoB3vMiWZW91A1poCAKhGma5Q1q Xz0CrovW2xpLvrBfiHTz1mxHt8I3yylliHF5UC2EPqkZXCHV65TuebTx6x9clZO0 XWa2GiB21f402Fiury2o59iyTqfpYuBeds40jnBlbkNrM5LI146Qi5Ty7SXSddXC vkGB2cdkspQH7eatnqELjpdrt0zbxijuiKs98P/FTO4tfnM8FVTFGzH2VuWk92Sd BGUgsC6BgQjZWZBlFE8aV+V1WYkufTexzxMY9pzxo9sJBKtlEUf5HFeqVY74q2wu NSLA0uj2u/hQr35doBAZ0zti1Q3YLq8yqILoBNyQQ2vh80z7qWxivn+4ScsfwBy0 Nu0zDz6zATZB =wsvm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-jgDzHqtEAg1HSza01VPI--