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 D092613825A for ; Sun, 15 May 2016 22:47:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBF82141B2; Sun, 15 May 2016 22:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA74421C038 for ; Sun, 15 May 2016 22:46:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b24oE-0004f3-A2 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 16 May 2016 00:46:50 +0200 Received: from ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net ([98.167.165.199]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 00:46:50 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 00:46:50 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/ Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 22:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1462655928.66afcab271f65b97330e610040ad3acc1b812a03.hd_brummy@gentoo> <1537862.pH6huOSrz0@localhost> <2471981.YXCVhQinPE@localhost> <20160515122931.62603b62.mgorny@gentoo.org> <4504fd28-f9fa-031b-5d9b-9e13c8cafbb9@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.141 (Tarzan's Death; GIT fefda68dd) X-Archives-Salt: ba04b18d-0cb5-453e-8ebd-29bebdc74e62 X-Archives-Hash: edb769e8fd6b91338745ae9666128501 Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:16:30 -0700 as excerpted: > On 05/15/2016 03:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> However, is it that much of >> an effort to test eclass changes using ebuilds *before* committing it? >> It wasn't that hard even in times of CVS (esp. that we're talking about >> separate directories), and it is even easier in times of git. >> > One can't coddle someone who's breaking the tree, especially > when we expect people to test before committing. Orthogonal to the general discussion, but could be critical for some... Both the above comments reflect legacy CVS thought patterns in regard to commits. In git, commit != push , and here it's the push, not the commit, that's critical and that testing needs done before. Committing without testing, as long as you don't push, is fine, even meritorious. It's the push that uploads those commits to the gentoo reference repo, however, and testing should *definitely* be done before pushing, with more commits /before/ the push to fix what the tests found to be broken, should they be necessary. (Tho in keeping with the principle of ultimately atomic commits that don't break bisections, if a commit is found to be broken and is then fixed by another commit, a rebase to combine the two into one should be considered, thus avoiding breakage of bisections ending up with a commit between the break and its fix. Not that bisection is particularly practical in the gentoo repo context anyway, but that's a separate discussion, and good habits here will carry over to repos where bisection is actually practical and critically important.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman