On Monday, March 05, 2018 02:43:34 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Mar 05 2018, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Taken to it's logical end, then every VCS commit should have it's own > > revision. > > Could you explain how this follows? I don't see it. If you consider it absurd to not increment the revision due to changes that never made it in the archive, then I don't know where it stops. I admit, this was hyperbole, but Ian's extremism annoys me. I should do a better job of ignoring it. > > I think requiring a maintainer to increment the Debian revision of a > > package based on things that happen outside the Debian archive is "not > > a good idea'[1]. > > If a package is maintained in git, then re-using a version number means > force-pushing a git tag, which can get quite confusing quite fast (it's > worse than force-pushing a branch, IME). Sure. I completely agree that there are cases where it's reasonable to do so. All I'm arguing is that it's not absurd not to. There are quite reasonable cases where one need not do so and it leaves, IMO, a cleaner history. Honestly, I think Ian's use of 'absurd' was absurd. I think there are reasonable cases for doing it either way and there's no need to be absolutist about it. I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote since I wrote that I thought REQUIRING the revision to be bumped was a bad idea and you gave me a case where it made sense to do so. Nowhere in this thread have I ever said bumping the revision is inherently a bad idea. These threads spin off into endless tangents easily enough without people writing responses to what they imagined other people wrote. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.