| 1 |
On 09/22/2014 08:40 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Ulrich Mueller: |
| 5 |
>>> | • atomic commits (one logical change) |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> A version bump plus cleaning up older ebuilds will be considered |
| 8 |
>>> one logical change, I suppose? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> I'd consider it two logical changes (e.g. imagine a user complaining |
| 11 |
>> about ebuild removal... you cannot easily revert it if it's not a |
| 12 |
>> separate commit). But I don't have a strong opinion on that and I'm |
| 13 |
>> not sure if we can enforce commit rules in such fine-grained |
| 14 |
>> details, can we? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>> Do you think this should be added explicitly? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It is a very common example that should be mentioned. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Another example that just crossed my mind is ebuild bumps that also |
| 22 |
modify profiles/ (e.g. package.mask, because a dependency is also masked). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think I was initially assuming that it would be one commit since both |
| 25 |
things are related to the bump, but it also has advantages to split that up. |
Archives