| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > It is, however, worth repeating that in git, commits are entirely |
| 6 |
> > separate from pushes and are very (as in, extremely!) cheap, while |
| 7 |
> > pushes, particularly if properly repoman-checked, are obviously much more |
| 8 |
> > expensive. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Each commit really should be able to stand on its own all the same. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
They should all be able to pass a repoman check. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I guess in some ideal world I sort of agree; but in practice I think |
| 16 |
workflows exist that involve people messing around in their local repo |
| 17 |
until they get stuff right, then running repoman at the end and pushing the |
| 18 |
result (that is kind of the whole point of having a local staging repo.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-A |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Otherwise when you do try to use tools like bisect you can get |
| 25 |
> breakage. It is really frustrating when you're trying to track down a |
| 26 |
> change that causes an issue and find a large stretch of commits that |
| 27 |
> won't even build. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> Rich |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
Archives