Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

[Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 19/10/15 08:21 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
>> wrote:
>>> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: """ 
>>> amd64 stabilizations
>>> 
>>> <optional list of bugs> """ possibly pre-pending the rough
>>> domain like "kde", if any. I think kde herd already does
>>> that, no?
>> 
>> Sounds sane to me.
> 
> I think that standardizing how we comment on bulk-stabilization 
> commits makes more sense than making them less atomic.  Not
> getting half a KDE update is actually one of the nice selling
> features of git. Plus, in the event of a disaster it also makes
> rollback easier.
> 
> But, by all means we should update the wiki to recommend the
> standard way to document these changes.
> 


It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and
hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits less
atomic" conversely.

Just so i make sure i'm understanding this right, hasufell's
suggestion is to, instead of rolling a single "atomic" commit for
every package being stabilized under a tracker bug, that the whole
set of packages gets stabilized via one commit.  Thus ensuring one
doesn't get half a kde update, and rollbacks can be done at a single
commit level, etc.

Do I have this right?

(note, since all of these package changes are for a particular
single purpose imo it would still be an atomic commit)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlYlACsACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1yuQD+KaeYsBnQdxL/jCA7AywJwRW4
Iv6LSjNSgMAgYJRCtU8BANz5MrAh8uzqdA03oWetvISXz50nSDa0LuS3XebBZCfi
=UBQF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----