| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> How git is relevant I don't really see, you'd still have to re-test all |
| 4 |
> involved packages, so the effort is mostly in testing and not in running |
| 5 |
> ekeyword in a loop. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If you removed stable keywords from 300 packages, they would be in a |
| 9 |
single git commit. That means you can restore those keywords in a |
| 10 |
single command once you've checked that the new library can be made |
| 11 |
stable. The benefit of git is that tree-wide operations are atomic. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Generally speaking arch teams do not test EVERY reverse dependency of |
| 14 |
a library with the stable branch before stabilizing it. Certainly |
| 15 |
arch teams that can't even keep up with stable requests will not do |
| 16 |
so. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm not saying I'm in favor of breaking the stable depgraph. I just |
| 19 |
think that we need to think through the effects of removing hundreds |
| 20 |
of keywords on users (as bircoph points out in his reply). Neither |
| 21 |
option is terribly great. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives