On 08/12/2015 12:11 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 08/12/2015 08:48 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:17:10 +0200 hasufell wrote: >>> On 08/11/2015 08:34 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>> commit: 719cc5ef240b766953ddbe1e7a6593f8091eed12 >>>> Author: Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org> >>>> AuthorDate: Tue Aug 11 06:28:16 2015 +0000 >>>> Commit: Mike Frysinger <vapier <AT> gentoo <DOT> org> >>>> CommitDate: Tue Aug 11 06:34:22 2015 +0000 >>>> URL: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=719cc5ef >>>> >>>> microcode-ctl: stop installing the init script >>>> >>>> Updating microcode on the fly is dangerous as it can modify the set of >>>> valid instructions. An active example of this is Intel's TSX insns -- >>>> the latest microcode push disables the insn on newer CPUs and causes >>>> SIGILL when you try to use it. But if you test for the insn before the >>>> microcode is updated, it will execute fine. For daemons that launched >>>> before the update, they'll find the flag works, and then crash later on >>>> when the insn no longer exists. >>>> >>>> Thus the only safe way to update microcode is at boot time via a builtin >>>> initramfs. Details on this operation can be found in #528712#41. >>>> >>> >>> I've already asked you twice on the ML why you keep ignoring the >>> standard we set for the commit message summary and pretty much everyone >>> is following except you. >> >> Let me remind you that: >> 1. this is not a standard, but a draft; >> 2. not all issues are clear right now (e.g. how to reference bugs); >> 3. it is not approved by the Council; >> 4. not everyone agrees with these rules anyway. >> > > So you want to sabotage consistency and wait until the council approves > every minor detail that has been worked out by the community? These > things WERE discussed (half a year ago or more) and there was consensus. > Things that are still not clear (such as referencing bug reports) were > not added to the wiki. Don't mix things up. > > If we say everyone is allowed to ignore all the rules as long as it > repoman-checks, then I don't know why I even keep throwing out > discussions, emails and editing the wiki. Commit message format is > really not a workflow-limiting thing. I don't know why you complain like > that. > > And vapier has not participated much in that discussion and has not > expressed his interest in a different format. So how is anyone supposed > to react to that? > > This is not constructive. >
And as I see it, even vapier does it now. So everything is good. https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3581b2c101337dec32c2bd6779db7927ff96732a It was probably related to repoman lacking proper support there. Thanks for your cooperation.
