Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 July 2014 02:12, Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> wrote: >> >> Do not forget modification of eclasses which then require mass bumps! > > I'm curious what the -r1.1 technique would do here. > > I mean, wouldn't that mean you have 2 ebuilds that are identical except for > the '.1' simply due to the eclass change? > > That's going to be confusing.
Not at all, it is completely identical to a revision bump: If you would use -r2 instead of -r1.1, you also would end up in -r1 and -r2 being identical. Actually, in both cases, you would *remove* -r1, since -r1 is incorrect since it should have been bumped. > -r1.1 weirdness feels like it may cause more problems than it solves. So far, nobody pointed out any problem which would be caused by -r1.1. Which is not surprising, since the idea is that -r1.1 cannot be distinguished from -r2: It is only a hint to the PM that he *may* shortcut certain phases when updating from -r1.
