| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage |
| 5 |
>> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't think of |
| 6 |
>> a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane to |
| 7 |
>> checkout one commit after another, and run @world upgrade in the middle |
| 8 |
>> of it. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Revisions are to indicate that one incarnation of a package differs from |
| 12 |
> another in a way that the user or package manager might care about. And |
| 13 |
> on principal, it's no business of yours what people want to do with |
| 14 |
> their tree. If someone wants to check out successive commits and emerge |
| 15 |
> @world, he's within his rights to do so. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I don't feel I should be obligated by policy to support this use case. |
| 18 |
One revbump per push seems sufficiently safe for 99.9% of users. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If you want to do more revbumps, you are free to do so. |
Archives