> Hi Shea, > > > I don't think this accurately reflects the reasons we use > > stdenv-updates. We don't put it all in the same branch because more > > fine-grained branching is expensive, we put it all in the same branch > > because we want the eventual merge of the changes to happen at the > > same time. > > exactly who is "we"? Please speak for yourself. I, for one, do not want > unrelated changes to be merged in one commit, because that habit breaks > extremely useful tools such as "git bisect". > > Besides, having many different stdenv/* topic branches does not imply > that each of them must be merged into master separately. You *can* merge > them all at once, of course, if you want to. It just so happens that I > wouldn't want to do that because the practice violates elementary > principles software engineering. >
Do you see why there are benefits, if not from a developer's perspective, from an end-user perspective and from hydra's perspective to having changes to stdenv be infrequent and more inclusive than is appropriate for a generic feature branch? > > Take care, > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
