On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage
> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't think of
> a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane to
> checkout one commit after another, and run @world upgrade in the middle
> of it.
>
Revisions are to indicate that one incarnation of a package differs from
another in a way that the user or package manager might care about. And
on principal, it's no business of yours what people want to do with
their tree. If someone wants to check out successive commits and emerge
@world, he's within his rights to do so.
This is relevant because your proposed policy,
* presumes to know how people will use the tree, and places arbitrary
restrictions on them
* can cause problems if those assumptions don't hold
* requires developers to think about when it's safe to push (Did I
push those changes last night? Do I need another revision?)
* and is more complicated than the safe solution, anyway
Here's my proposal regarding revisions:
If you make a commit that requires a revision, make a revision.
If you wind up with an -r15 in the tree, who cares? It's simpler, safer,
and less to think about.
