| 1 |
On 08/19/2015 08:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/19/2015 10:49 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> And how often was that useful in practice? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Well, there haven't been any EAPI bumps lately. However, in the time |
| 6 |
> that follows an EAPI bump, it can be very useful if there are new |
| 7 |
> dependency features that require new repoman checks. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Still am not sure how this is useful in practice. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Some commit is broken, someone else finds out. He runs repoman locally: |
| 13 |
* repoman reports the brokenness -> ask the committer which repoman |
| 14 |
version he used (and if he can reproduce it with latest stable |
| 15 |
repoman) |
| 16 |
* repoman does not report brokenness -> report a bug against his local |
| 17 |
version after checking that he is up2date |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Now with git... it is even easier to test these things, because you can |
| 20 |
just jump back in time and run repoman on the offending commit. No |
| 21 |
reason to include that information in all commits, afais. And it doesn't |
| 22 |
tell you much anyway, because other versions could be affected too by |
| 23 |
the bug, so you end up debugging properly anyway. |
Archives