Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jonathan Callen <jcallen@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm <gentoo-scm@l.g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo git workflows and the stabilization/keywording process
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:03:23
Message-Id: 541F2F01.1020106@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo git workflows and the stabilization/keywording process by "Michał Górny"
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA512
3
4 On 09/21/2014 01:21 PM, Micha³ Górny wrote:
5 > Dnia 2014-09-18, o godz. 19:39:08 Tobias Klausmann
6 > <klausman-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@××××××××××××.org> napisa³(a):
7 >
8 >> Since we're causing at least mild upheaval process-wise, I
9 >> thought I'd bring up a topic that will be exacerbated by the git
10 >> migration if it's not really addressed.
11 >>
12 >> AIUI, we try to avoid merge conflicts, unless the merge is a
13 >> meaningful integration of divergent processes.
14 >>
15 >> However, one aspect of how ebuilds are written these days will
16 >> cause a non-trivial amount of merge commits that are not
17 >> actually useful in that sense.
18 >>
19 >> This is due to the way keywording and stabilization work on an
20 >> ebuild level. Since keywords are all in one line, any merge tool
21 >> will barf on two keywords being changed in disparate clones.
22 >> I.e. if I change ~alpha->alpha while someone else changes
23 >> ~amd64->amd64, we will have a merge conflict.
24 >
25 > If someone stabilizes the package you have edited, then most likely
26 > you actually want to edit your commits and move the changes to a
27 > revbump.
28 >
29 > If at all, I'd be more worried by a case when queued version bumps
30 > would lose keywords that were added in the meantime to older
31 > versions.
32 >
33
34 The case under discussion here was where the only edit made locally to
35 the ebuild was, in fact, stabilizing the ebuild on a different
36 architecture. In this case, the correct response would be to ensure
37 that the final commit pushed (whether it be a merge commit or rebased)
38 contains the stabilization for both arches, as there would be no need
39 to revbump to add a stable keyword (in fact, I'd call that an
40 incorrect resolution).
41
42 - --
43 Jonathan Callen
44 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
45 Version: GnuPG v2
46
47 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUHy8BAAoJELHSF2kinlg4wPIP/jrDAo0ye4f/5jRF3AwZYTN8
48 UkEJywDWFA4K9ffZbuAN2gGEWGclh6p5fMiiPwKjxAaMDzopuWdzWRrVYXsTEqqW
49 SKT0jmAQroSiXj3DLczuvijw0xhY1sKLAUUnnsxhdieYb61SusIBV5xtDl4R/xuD
50 pF8wtlEp/KL3Kbba4wlcBL4lZsSannuNZ8BA0QyGhPfiLb/UEYQsL+hhwWNR9IlM
51 HnDuBzdHFvJP29QfP556+ItxoKFDFJpRMYqukN2Ws1g276DesryWe0iWF9hvzCyj
52 VdTml7T+u1i7VXM9UCE0IAp7r94y/14Q1S/+XWLNxATFxI2xVP3HuecZVKwDYhcy
53 zu8FTcRmYZddIzhcnUKVWe/e5ihIvYlesEoKVgsl6TCXbcbshzyKEpfZXcjTs5Po
54 gQe32QPDwLetqO5qbko51SbO2E1gCMEFrzf+MsBLE2oO+nhfEbL6Gmsx5F7beM37
55 AafEdb8U3ZBi7jz2/zPGBKzoyDinbjB9o5I+mrwG7qL4t0OZDjS9Qg/eOg3lm3cF
56 5tQbMNvVOzxBocis3FSk+L9lMVxQKQAYCrYn52meZbbCdFc85bnqXuCZvh1Q+mp0
57 zgX8vroDDyzpzP6AJeq8haP10TExnVABbsZHV9YxhVEipQO0mPrtzDWodS157dEN
58 yzgJrofBkxqf/r2hUcvX
59 =gARN
60 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies