> On Nov 1, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Daniel J. Luke <dl...@geeklair.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Lawrence Velázquez <lar...@macports.org> wrote:
>> While I agree in principle that our committing should not be
>> hampered by the buildbot and would welcome another solution, I'm not
>> crazy about the idea of polluting our (permanent!) commit history
>> with transient administrivia like this.
> A tag that indicates 'This commit was part of a mass change' (that
> doesn't change the build product) doesn't seem like pollution in the
> commit history to me, but I don't really care too much.

In the Trac ticket, Rainer linked to a Stack Overflow post that
suggested modifying a dummy file. I'm more amenable to that method.

> I imagine this could also be handled 'manually' by someone who could
> temporarily disable the build infrastructure, make the mass change,
> and then bring the build infrastructure back up.

I think GitHub would eventually redeliver the failed webhook payload in
that case.

macports-dev mailing list

Reply via email to