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 2245F139694 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:29:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4AE0E0E47; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 587C9E0D5E for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com (mail-it0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79E4A341703 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h199so57336351ith.1 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112W6YL+YNUrAJPe/GMR8mHWAauNkkZqEs+VWF31d1gy++b/KgA/ JtuRnMc+VwS9iHejTQj+ADn5D3wW/Q== X-Received: by 10.36.185.88 with SMTP id k24mr12196681iti.163.1501014569643; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:29:29 -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 Received: by 10.107.175.210 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:29:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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> From: Mike Gilbert Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:29:09 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: 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: d21e2b59-990d-4915-a596-492d937c5e91 X-Archives-Hash: 0c6b1eaf36c4fdd9b536b9e2ccfcfc27 On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > 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 encourage >> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't think of >> a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane to >> checkout one commit after another, and run @world upgrade in the middle >> 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 emerge > @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.