Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change.
>>>> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really
>>>> diminish the impact of each one.  Any of them could break a system or
>>>> need to be reverted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since when do we allow reverting stabilization? The package needs to be
>>> fixed and possibly revbumped instead.
>>>
>>
>> It would really depend on the nature of the break.  If it is a serious
>> upstream problem and no fix is available, then reverting might be the
>> only practical solution.  It is of course not a preferred solution.
>>
>
> I don't think we depend on 'git revert' in that case. KEYWORDS are
> trivial changes (in terms of file diffs).
>

True, as long as they're truly standalone.

Maybe the compromise is:
1.  Groups of related stabilizations should be grouped.
2.  Groups of only unrelated stabilizations can also be grouped.
3.  You must not try to mix #1 and #2 in the same commit.

As you say individual packages are easy to revert anyway.  However, we
wouldn't want 100 of those to be mixed in with 50 packages that all
needed to be coordinated, because those 50 aren't easy to revert.

-- 
Rich