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 understanding this right, hasufell's >> suggestion is to, instead of rolling a single "atomic" commit for >> every package being stabilized under a tracker bug, that the whole >> set of packages gets stabilized via one commit. Thus ensuring one >> doesn't get half a kde update, and rollbacks can be done at a single >> commit level, etc. >> >> Do I have this right? >> >> (note, since all of these package changes are for a particular >> single purpose imo it would still be an atomic commit) >> >> > > Well yes. But you could go one step further and argue that we can allow > the same thing when ago's scripts make 300 commits for 300 stabilization > bugs at once (same category or not). > > The question is if stabilization needs to be atomic history-wise. It is > nothing you revert or cherry-pick anyway and you could consider it a > global commit too with the subsystem "stable arch". > while I think that one commit per bug is preferred, having multiple bugs in one commit is ok as well. Some of us already do this sometimes when updating packages (multiple birds with one stone and all that).
-- -- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
