| 1 |
Tom Wijsman posted on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:19:54 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:06:57 +0700 "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" |
| 4 |
> <mva@×××.name> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking build at |
| 7 |
>> all. And, in parallel, to add groupping. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> [...] |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Any objections/approvals/suggestions? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> What are the use cases of this idea? What is its goal? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> In my use case, I've found or written patches with a permanent purpose; |
| 16 |
> therefore, I'd like the patches to apply or die hard with a purpose. |
| 17 |
> I can't imagine an use case where you don't want them to apply. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Indeed. If the patches no longer apply, I want to know it so I can |
| 20 |
either clean them out or generate fresh patches that apply to the new |
| 21 |
code. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So far you (OP) have unanimous rejection, but that may simply be because |
| 24 |
we don't see that use-case. So let's see the use-case first, and if that |
| 25 |
is agreed to be useful enough, there's still some change to either change |
| 26 |
opinion, or perhaps come up with a less objectionable way to support that |
| 27 |
use-case without the severe down sides of the current proposal. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives