From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-72849-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08ABE13888F
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:53:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABDEEE087A;
	Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:53:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176])
	(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 BD6FCE0874
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:52:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioll68 with SMTP id l68so41602269iol.3
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
         :from:to:content-type;
        bh=N9TM4/UJaW4Rx7XXu3NNQk5xcvWE1VpLO/P6YoF4VNU=;
        b=f7jSfAC0Mv7V5PiVyVKqBctteZZxcyZTGMvzTrfc2qr2ZrViuqo4zVkDKlWaJB3uHJ
         s8EjBdg1PcaosXVHvG6zBjByKbQF52bsp0e2aBtbaPlADxBAX40y2ySi6lKhlz3WzRXT
         4gU1UuxvwgVQ5eHF3bz3xOlosQl3E9Jwq2MrNHMkAe5mbzoxW13nfoD5/RTC0nV02HTb
         RQe5AXWpAMcF79Jf9mMk2o5V+novwL2HS0LrRJbRW1yLCmX9kD21wYzw7i84jIShZovH
         WfBC7ExAQCmfkFhcv1xXkJqQ6O+ujKJNJGOZHKAUdAT+cJYJYRbZXCYHwBrN6EgyWE/P
         TCEA==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.155.146 with SMTP id d140mr38820717ioe.43.1445277178115;
 Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.103.70 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56252B09.4030103@gentoo.org>
References: <5624D22A.8030806@gentoo.org>
	<CAKmKYaDSOT7CUphssVkznv9H_3np+wBJR2kCD1Dj7=CG0447qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGfcS_=WMMipsXUCcVrJtUopjgBSysxRWTNcnWf3XuPEQrPkXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5625002B.2010202@gentoo.org>
	<5625069A.9070206@gentoo.org>
	<56250BFC.7070705@gentoo.org>
	<CAGfcS_nFYEum5HR9DJB=Hv5Hb8tpDFV=8zXBfiGLOrDB3OwTig@mail.gmail.com>
	<562524CE.2080602@gentoo.org>
	<CAGfcS_n4Gn5pQCPYkBnCCt=a2EjO-WgR=oxgM8pd71yfKaQGJg@mail.gmail.com>
	<56252B09.4030103@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:52:58 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6VYM60Nam7xkaPsCtl1kt_Atu-U
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_keb7BCUQ3uF=ePv7SUUP6z-b=wHQbHG6ohAFk5a0_u7A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 109acd2a-1248-4e77-bd93-f5f2670621d8
X-Archives-Hash: c898c65cd35e2c2d11eaf3c99e0fdbb1

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.

-- 
Rich