Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: sys-apps/microcode-ctl/

[hasufell]

On 08/12/2015 12:11 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/12/2015 08:48 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:17:10 +0200 hasufell wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> commit:     719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12
>>>> Author:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>>>> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 +0000
>>>> Commit:     Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
>>>> CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 +0000
>>>> URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=719cc5ef
>>>>
>>>> microcode-ctl: stop installing the init script
>>>>
>>>> Updating microcode on the fly is dangerous as it can modify the set of
>>>> valid instructions.  An active example of this is Intel's TSX insns --
>>>> the latest microcode push disables the insn on newer CPUs and causes
>>>> SIGILL when you try to use it.  But if you test for the insn before the
>>>> microcode is updated, it will execute fine.  For daemons that launched
>>>> before the update, they'll find the flag works, and then crash later on
>>>> when the insn no longer exists.
>>>>
>>>> Thus the only safe way to update microcode is at boot time via a builtin
>>>> initramfs.  Details on this operation can be found in #528712#41.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've already asked you twice on the ML why you keep ignoring the
>>> standard we set for the commit message summary and pretty much everyone
>>> is following except you.
>>
>> Let me remind you that:
>> 1. this is not a standard, but a draft;
>> 2. not all issues are clear right now (e.g. how to reference bugs);
>> 3. it is not approved by the Council;
>> 4. not everyone agrees with these rules anyway.
>>
>
> So you want to sabotage consistency and wait until the council approves
> every minor detail that has been worked out by the community? These
> things WERE discussed (half a year ago or more) and there was consensus.
> Things that are still not clear (such as referencing bug reports) were
> not added to the wiki. Don't mix things up.
>
> If we say everyone is allowed to ignore all the rules as long as it
> repoman-checks, then I don't know why I even keep throwing out
> discussions, emails and editing the wiki. Commit message format is
> really not a workflow-limiting thing. I don't know why you complain like
> that.
>
> And vapier has not participated much in that discussion and has not
> expressed his interest in a different format. So how is anyone supposed
> to react to that?
>
> This is not constructive.
>

And as I see it, even vapier does it now. So everything is good.

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3581b2c101337dec32c2bd6779db7927ff96732a

It was probably related to repoman lacking proper support there. Thanks
for your cooperation.