1 |
Daniel Campbell posted on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:16:30 -0700 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 05/15/2016 03:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
>> However, is it that much of |
6 |
>> an effort to test eclass changes using ebuilds *before* committing it? |
7 |
>> It wasn't that hard even in times of CVS (esp. that we're talking about |
8 |
>> separate directories), and it is even easier in times of git. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> One can't coddle someone who's breaking the tree, especially |
11 |
> when we expect people to test before committing. |
12 |
|
13 |
Orthogonal to the general discussion, but could be critical for some... |
14 |
|
15 |
Both the above comments reflect legacy CVS thought patterns in regard to |
16 |
commits. In git, commit != push , and here it's the push, not the |
17 |
commit, that's critical and that testing needs done before. |
18 |
|
19 |
Committing without testing, as long as you don't push, is fine, even |
20 |
meritorious. It's the push that uploads those commits to the gentoo |
21 |
reference repo, however, and testing should *definitely* be done before |
22 |
pushing, with more commits /before/ the push to fix what the tests found |
23 |
to be broken, should they be necessary. |
24 |
|
25 |
(Tho in keeping with the principle of ultimately atomic commits that |
26 |
don't break bisections, if a commit is found to be broken and is then |
27 |
fixed by another commit, a rebase to combine the two into one should be |
28 |
considered, thus avoiding breakage of bisections ending up with a commit |
29 |
between the break and its fix. Not that bisection is particularly |
30 |
practical in the gentoo repo context anyway, but that's a separate |
31 |
discussion, and good habits here will carry over to repos where bisection |
32 |
is actually practical and critically important.) |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
36 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
37 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |