-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 19/10/15 11:04 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/19/2015 04:37 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> >> >> 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) >> >> > > Well yes. But you could go one step further and argue that we > can allow the same thing when ago's scripts make 300 commits for > 300 stabilization bugs at once (same category or not). > > The question is if stabilization needs to be atomic > history-wise. It is nothing you revert or cherry-pick anyway and > you could consider it a global commit too with the subsystem > "stable arch". >
Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so comfortable with that idea.. BUT, nothing stopped us from doing this with CVS (although the mapping of commit between CVS and GIT aren't exactly 1:1), so i guess it's fine..? What about simply keeping things as they are but not strictly enforcing them when they are used in a manner like this for special cases, such as ago's stabilizations or other security@ or arch team keyword-related commits? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYlC/wACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1XSgD/fa4M2E7k4asOeUGgLEt2um6m 9NovN22eVUeLbSvtnLoBALT4+vhXqYhi3K3ytFv6dcfcKFpiYMbuWuMNu2YrVRj9 =Ef9v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
