On Jan 16, 2014 10:19 AM, "Andrew Lutomirski" <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Yeah, I wouldn't trust my un built changes either :-). But I think I'd go with another of Kevin's options - go ahead and build in rawhide. There's really no downside to getting your this type of change out there sooner rather than later.
-Toshio
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
