From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F9313888F for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:37:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C11921C050; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:37:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 454CCE07FD for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.138.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C834933FAAE for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:37:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <5624D22A.8030806@gentoo.org> From: Ian Stakenvicius Message-ID: <5625002B.2010202@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:37:31 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 550cc87a-2687-4b4a-acdc-b6c61758e5ac X-Archives-Hash: 454abaa3f243489a132fb841eb20ac1a -----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 > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell >> wrote: >>> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: """ >>> amd64 stabilizations >>> >>> """ 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-----