On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 07/25/2017 09:23 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>> How is that relevant? Revision bumps are merely a tool to encourage >>> 'automatic' rebuilds of packages during @world upgrade. I can't think of >>> a single use case where somebody would actually think it sane to >>> checkout one commit after another, and run @world upgrade in the middle >>> of it. >>> >> >> Revisions are to indicate that one incarnation of a package differs from >> another in a way that the user or package manager might care about. And >> on principal, it's no business of yours what people want to do with >> their tree. If someone wants to check out successive commits and emerge >> @world, he's within his rights to do so. > > I don't feel I should be obligated by policy to support this use case. > One revbump per push seems sufficiently safe for 99.9% of users. > > If you want to do more revbumps, you are free to do so. >
What is the point of separating changes by commits if we don't generally try to keep each commit working? Sure, there are some cases where it is just going to be too painful to ensure that, and so it doesn't have to be an absolute rule. However, if somebody is checking out a tree at some point in the past they shouldn't have to try to figure out where the last push boundary was to ensure that it is sane. Use cases for that include updating older systems progressively, or bisecting a problem. -- Rich
