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 127F8139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:46:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 036BA1FC00A; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x241.google.com (mail-yw0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::241]) (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 A414E1FC002 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:46:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x241.google.com with SMTP id p68so3675425ywg.5 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:46:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P6Z0v9r/qlyNNArrrFqmPTYANdsIl1HTy0hj6Bcuw+M=; b=nHuIlrpNRnBfucLYN2GgeYgfvKv9x6dBUA1Gi1dXXYMDJQJDvO6Ag6ArVSXtksmSjN SA1aQM0xs86M1oSB9DuXeKHjcl6F/QR6opGwIyTOTprFemCgvS3GbznCof14QZdOdkFz 96lYGSFUVkAm7VfYiycJYg89Ndf6XqX6SIEWgRIXQfdk88vGIx7Wy9BhpfVX5JMygxgm B70KTkuIK5gPwcgoidA0L9Sp0TtL9Vlw9qXa9p7GqXQ9b/ktoit7KHRLrKSyNDbMIFaE JU2H4ex4Q8PNPCrPYNe0puGyAEk86GyujKEeo/Ny0clR1NjQW0D62kCMeeuEIkzHgR2G l52w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P6Z0v9r/qlyNNArrrFqmPTYANdsIl1HTy0hj6Bcuw+M=; b=jKxQUxMeDbWIixul7n8XbO7uWD5CRc6eXSQLe/rjTmyCgvQuPq2iLH4qK3/lKfysgc eVCnztT6j7YkK5ryQejeG3eZuBC+gcoWeMVmvwHk9FCsgIrR3I061fHJLoaG8iMncjis tWzVMK3Rph7z7oqcUr6bS96pr5MBBDxAIKRi3R0JucigvNdeQc4c7U2cxGed3QRvU7O/ wtqRi/21c+wP4nT2GWPQ6lvK374+4RsEg1wDReyrlkQRybtY94aB6QS3k265cFMiuV6x 5uzhHkfKiyM4sb9IapaGx9sp5XCJXQKAQVShw/6YySx+evUbgdc78/0sKEUtkm8tVDn7 0BsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1104k2PQJugRjxaBD6SPMRrY3vEI9KGJnJZDBcs1CnTjGg15X3fW dxCo7upiXm1wqscCb4YVM1BMR2EjcgFuvoA= X-Received: by 10.37.114.194 with SMTP id n185mr4106952ybc.349.1501022806316; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:46:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.129.71.3 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:46:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1501021831.16994.8.camel@gentoo.org> 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> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:46:45 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: t8N6VccmQ_z9B3tzedles0JJjIM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 80da506a-6520-4d51-82e0-3ed1c54d8f6c X-Archives-Hash: cf49aa70ddb68969fa588130ccf13db9 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 wrote= : >> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wr= ote: >> > > On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >> > > > >> > > > How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourag= e >> > > > 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't th= ink of >> > > > a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane to >> > > > checkout one commit after another, and run @world upgrade in the m= iddle >> > > > of it. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Revisions are to indicate that one incarnation of a package differs = from >> > > another in a way that the user or package manager might care about. = And >> > > on principal, it's no business of yours what people want to do with >> > > their tree. If someone wants to check out successive commits and eme= rge >> > > @world, he's within his rights to do so. >> > >> > I don't feel I should be obligated by policy to support this use case. >> > One revbump per push seems sufficiently safe for 99.9% of users. >> > >> > If you want to do more revbumps, you are free to do so. >> > >> >> What is the point of separating changes by commits if we don't >> generally try to keep each commit working? >> >> Sure, there are some cases where it is just going to be too painful to >> ensure that, and so it doesn't have to be an absolute rule. >> >> 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. > > Guys, please cut this FUD. > > 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. > I wasn't referring to revbumps. Just to ensuring that all commits generally work even if they aren't pushed. --=20 Rich