On wto, 2017-07-25 at 18:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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.
Guys, please cut this FUD. Nothing is broken if you don't revbump. The only thing that doesn't happen is that the PM isn't obliged to suggest user to upgrade. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
