1 |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:13 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Yes, you have to rerun repoman after a rebase or merge. On the tip of |
3 |
> the local master branch (as in: right before you try to push). |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Sure, this may lead to problems if repoman takes long... but that's on |
6 |
> purpose. If your changes are that big, then they should be communicated |
7 |
> and coordinated properly without people randomly pushing changes in |
8 |
> between that may break yours. |
9 |
|
10 |
What do you mean by proper coordination? Are you suggesting that we |
11 |
have scheduled downtime anytime we do a kde stablereq or something |
12 |
like that, once per arch? |
13 |
|
14 |
Simply announcing the change isn't going to make repoman run any |
15 |
faster. If you try to stablize something like kde and the packages |
16 |
are in more than one category, then you will need something like |
17 |
10-20min of tree downtime to do a commit if you have to do a repoman |
18 |
scan in the middle on spinning disks. If somebody so much as does a |
19 |
whitespace fix on a completely unrelated package you won't get a |
20 |
fast-forward commit. |
21 |
|
22 |
I'm all for consistency, but repoman against the entire tree is not |
23 |
fast, and if you ban non-fast-forward commits then effectively all git |
24 |
commits collide. Combining the two makes the collision window |
25 |
unsuitable for commits even in the middle of the night. |
26 |
|
27 |
So, unless we want to schedule all multi-category commits and build |
28 |
some kind of mechanism to even enforce this, I think we'll have to |
29 |
live with trusting devs to just run repoman before their final |
30 |
merge/rebase, and then they can use their judgment about whether it |
31 |
will cause problems. I'm not saying that many big changes shouldn't |
32 |
be coordinated, but that shouldn't apply to every kde stablereq/etc. |
33 |
I think that this will still be a big improvement on what we have |
34 |
today. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Rich |