[gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

I'd like to discuss whether we should allow/encourage stabilization commits to be less atomic. They often bloat the history, make it hard to skim through the summaries list and people who are looking for stabilization probably do 'git log -- ' anyway, no? In addition, I'm not sure the bug

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell wrote: >> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: >> """ >> amd64 stabilizations >> >> >> """ >> possibly pre-pending the rough domain like

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell wrote: > I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits like: > """ > amd64 stabilizations > > > """ > possibly pre-pending the rough domain like "kde", if any. I think kde > herd already does that, no? Sounds sane to me. Cheers,

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 10:04 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

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,

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

-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"

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 19/10/15 08:21 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman > wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, hasufell >> wrote: >>> I'd go so far to say allow people to do commits

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:13 PM, hasufell wrote: > > We already know that. But if e.g. ago runs his scripts at 00:00 with > ~300 packages stabilized, the history (without git command line) on > github/gitweb will be fun to read (and people DO that). > It doesn't seem like it

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. > The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really > diminish the impact of each one. Any of them could break a system or > need to be reverted. > Since when do

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. >> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really >> diminish the impact of each one.

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. >>> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:55 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 10/19/2015 07:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell wrote: >>> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: However, stabilizing a single package really is

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > 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.. Nor am I. A commit should be a set of related changes.

Re: [gentoo-dev] stabilization commits and atomicity

On 10/19/2015 07:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> 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.. > > Nor