-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 19/10/15 08:21 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: """ >>> amd64 stabilizations >>> >>> <optional list of bugs> """ possibly pre-pending the rough >>> domain like "kde", if any. I think kde herd already does >>> that, no? >> >> Sounds sane to me. > > I think that standardizing how we comment on bulk-stabilization > commits makes more sense than making them less atomic. Not > getting half a KDE update is actually one of the nice selling > features of git. Plus, in the event of a disaster it also makes > rollback easier. > > But, by all means we should update the wiki to recommend the > standard way to document these changes. >
It may be my lack of coffee this morning, but I think you and hasufell are saying the same thing but using "making commits less atomic" conversely. Just so i make sure i'm understanding this right, hasufell's suggestion is to, instead of rolling a single "atomic" commit for every package being stabilized under a tracker bug, that the whole set of packages gets stabilized via one commit. Thus ensuring one doesn't get half a kde update, and rollbacks can be done at a single commit level, etc. Do I have this right? (note, since all of these package changes are for a particular single purpose imo it would still be an atomic commit) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYlACsACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1yuQD+KaeYsBnQdxL/jCA7AywJwRW4 Iv6LSjNSgMAgYJRCtU8BANz5MrAh8uzqdA03oWetvISXz50nSDa0LuS3XebBZCfi =UBQF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
