On 08/19/2015 11:11 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 08/19/2015 08:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 08/19/2015 10:49 AM, hasufell wrote: >>> And how often was that useful in practice? >> >> Well, there haven't been any EAPI bumps lately. However, in the time >> that follows an EAPI bump, it can be very useful if there are new >> dependency features that require new repoman checks. >> > > Still am not sure how this is useful in practice. > > Some commit is broken, someone else finds out. He runs repoman locally: > * repoman reports the brokenness -> ask the committer which repoman > version he used (and if he can reproduce it with latest stable > repoman) > * repoman does not report brokenness -> report a bug against his local > version after checking that he is up2date
I guess that will probably work well enough. > Now with git... it is even easier to test these things, because you can > just jump back in time and run repoman on the offending commit. Well, that's true if they use merge commits. If they rebase, that's trickier. I'm not really worried about it, though. > No > reason to include that information in all commits, afais. And it doesn't > tell you much anyway, because other versions could be affected too by > the bug, so you end up debugging properly anyway. > Yeah, I'm will willing to let it go away. -- Thanks, Zac
