On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:41:56 -0500 Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:51 AM Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:33:36 -0500 > > Tim Harder <radher...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > On 2019-12-06 Fri 04:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > it's not just like repoman and cvs since repoman commit did > > > > push ;) it will never be perfect but i really like repoman > > > > commit to refuse to even commit if there's something obviously > > > > wrong > > > > > > I'm more of the opinion (and am working towards that practicality > > > in terms of runtime speed) that a subset of QA checks should be > > > run as a git hook which would cause push failures on certain > > > classes of bad commits. > > > > > > There should be both. Amending the 23rd commit message because one > > mistyped a semicolon is kind of a PITA. > > It is? > > git rebase -i HEAD~23 > > Is that what you think is a pain in the ass, or do you not know about > interactive rebase? :) You made me look at the doc and I indeed had never used the reword option ;) got stuck at pick/squash/edit somehow and that's the edit I did consider a PITA yes Without good integration from the checker it is probably a PITA to figure out that 23 too and also still doesn't help for broken commits (not messages) that may or may not trigger later conflicts (unless we decide we don't care about working commits, just working pushes, which WFM)
