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 AD982139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:51:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDF411FC046; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 858BF1FC002 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:50:55 +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 B2C653418AE; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1501023049.16994.9.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 00:50:49 +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> <1501021831.16994.8.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-0CSxFIBdXunxvAZSE+y2" 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: a5cec725-46f0-4235-a1f5-48dde489dd57 X-Archives-Hash: 067805f5625f4b7c29c1f3e55f0c37cd --=-0CSxFIBdXunxvAZSE+y2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:46 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert wr= ote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky = wrote: > > > > > 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 encou= rage > > > > > > 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't= think of > > > > > > a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane t= o > > > > > > checkout one commit after another, and run @world upgrade in th= e middle > > > > > > of it. > > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > Revisions are to indicate that one incarnation of a package diffe= rs from > > > > > another in a way that the user or package manager might care abou= t. And > > > > > on principal, it's no business of yours what people want to do wi= th > > > > > their tree. If someone wants to check out successive commits and = emerge > > > > > @world, he's within his rights to do so. > > > >=20 > > > > I don't feel I should be obligated by policy to support this use ca= se. > > > > 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 t= o > > > 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. > >=20 > > Guys, please cut this FUD. > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > I wasn't referring to revbumps. Just to ensuring that all commits > generally work even if they aren't pushed. >=20 In that case, it is explicitly listed as the third rule for splitting. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-0CSxFIBdXunxvAZSE+y2 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+0Rk4FAll3y0lfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDZE QkIwN0NDNEYwREFEMDZFQTBBRkU0MUIwN0ExQUVBRUZCNDQ2NEUSHG1nb3JueUBn ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJELB6GurvtEZOn94P/RpsT7oQ1zig5EH7SzGFsnkmNqsDfkDh SwIZu448XfKurjNvLa033a2D3Wut56MGEVBMxcGNmYouCgV+8rMoiyxosVDD8bW3 h4ZFd8oulfUhD/i4imcMZOwOEq0ACutGTd+qkb6D11w0+RkSPXjKmKKpewZXA3kP GxI4GMRRsQ1Y6MItxHxXB9fp5PIEm5kL19zQaSIHGq5SyzWOgUHUWMWGDLu8IAPs A9XMuMZuGCwMzo3uP4l3jNQN0t7DDZ9cIBwTe+wWSXmT104IiHwxv3cxiMKXUqhp RAaJiTVAzeNiY/hZzZqGj3cIjxrlhpZ9j5yjO5dieTpvL9OGx6yF8Rb7697VTZXD B58g1EH4oNtcKqKaKSybluN4MERdplhrSVtKTpPBxrR1nI7eMK0cs6pC/m4RRD6T wMNqpznNHJGg4RYLD+wTueol6yRBbkcYQaa2wgQh16pBVP70Ir/AmBG8bjxxmJdG Sbwn2dBVzrl/nHnf9BSgAuAezEykocCgRD8/HtAYct+akt27MECgUQoIdD/vsYbL kAues7v57pFHCCsOki2OpKrCqlaByW+cb49E6juWHzKxOVVj8dWJcWqtXGjH2R6j oPIgenBedfFPeXBz9JE28fTmoZfo/6LPW2RbVqb/FG0bGAhO6yRIMQoTSyq4jyR+ dnnAhZOpSdKE =CST5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-0CSxFIBdXunxvAZSE+y2--