On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 11:29 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: >> On Út, 2014-01-14 at 13:13 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:41 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> > >> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain. >> > >> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a >> > >> new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can >> > >> imagine a couple of issues: >> > >> >> > >> - A provenpackager could kick off a rebuild for whatever reason (e.g. >> > >> dependency soname bump). That will (I think) inadvertently include my >> > >> changes. >> > > >> > > Yes, this will happen. Why do you think it's a problem, though? If your >> > > changes are correct but you just don't think it's worth doing a new >> > > build simply for them, why is it a problem if they get pulled in when >> > > someone does another build for some *other* (presumably appropriate) >> > > reason? It would seem like that's just what you'd want to happen. >> > >> > Depends how well I've tested. I'd like to imagine that I never commit >> > anything broken anywhere, but this is empirically incorrect -- I break >> > development branches on a semi-regular basis. I guess I'll just have >> > to be more cautious w/ Fedora :) >> > >> > > >> > >> - I need to think about whether to add a changelog entry or not. If >> > >> not, those changes might be included silently. If yes, then I need to >> > >> think about what to do about the revision number. >> > > >> > > One thing I've seen done is to add the line that actually describes the >> > > change, above the last date/builder/NEVR line, *without* adding a new >> > > line identifying the new build, date and builder. That way when someone >> > > comes along and does a new build, they ought to see what should happen - >> > > they should roll your partial entry into the entry they add for the >> > > build. >> > >> > That would work. >> >> I'd recommend rather the approach suggested by Kevin. Bump the release >> and include a regular changelog entry. Just do not build. There is no >> rule that all changeloged entries must be really built. > > I have found this kind of phantom release a bit annoying in some really > esoteric situations - when the changelog indicates that there was, say, > a 1.2-6 build, but there never was, only 1.2-5 and 1.2-7 - but most of > the time it's not going to be a problem, yeah. I can imagine this annoying anyone who does a mass rebuilt or a similar set of rebuilds that aren't intended (by the one doing the rebuilds) to change anything other than dependencies and, say, the compiler version. Sure, this *shouldn't* cause a problem if everyone is appropriately careful, but I'm hesitant to trust things that transparently deploy code when no has has explicitly asked for a change to be deployed. --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
