| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Er, you can't be seriously suggesting we will drop repoman checks with |
| 4 |
>> the migration to git? I don't see how that would benefit anyone. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Interesting point. One thing to keep in mind with git is that commits |
| 8 |
> don't affect the "central repository." Pushes are what impacts the |
| 9 |
> repository. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If I spend six months working on a bunch of coordinated package |
| 12 |
> changes, nobody will see a thing until I push those commits and 500 |
| 13 |
> ebuilds all change atomically (not that I'm suggesting that lack of |
| 14 |
> communication is to be encouraged). A repoman check on a commit may |
| 15 |
> not reflect its impact six months later when it actually hits the main |
| 16 |
> tree. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
... if you're squashing 6 months of work into a single commit before pushing. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I don't think we want to do that, do we? Maybe bisecting isn't |
| 21 |
particularly interesting for the portage tree. |
Archives