Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow

[Michał Górny]

On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:46 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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.
>

In that case, it is explicitly listed as the third rule for splitting.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny