| 1 |
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 27 July 2014 02:12, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Do not forget modification of eclasses which then require mass bumps! |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm curious what the -r1.1 technique would do here. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I mean, wouldn't that mean you have 2 ebuilds that are identical except for |
| 9 |
> the '.1' simply due to the eclass change? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> That's going to be confusing. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Not at all, it is completely identical to a revision bump: |
| 14 |
If you would use -r2 instead of -r1.1, you also would end up |
| 15 |
in -r1 and -r2 being identical. |
| 16 |
Actually, in both cases, you would *remove* -r1, since -r1 is incorrect |
| 17 |
since it should have been bumped. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> -r1.1 weirdness feels like it may cause more problems than it solves. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So far, nobody pointed out any problem which would be caused by -r1.1. |
| 22 |
Which is not surprising, since the idea is that -r1.1 cannot be |
| 23 |
distinguished from -r2: |
| 24 |
It is only a hint to the PM that he *may* shortcut certain phases when |
| 25 |
updating from -r1. |
Archives