On 10/19/2015 07:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> Ahh, so what you're referring to here is stabilization of multiple >> unrelated packages in a single commit.. ok.. i'm not so >> comfortable with that idea.. > > Nor am I. A commit should be a set of related changes. Stabilizing > all of KDE-n in one commit makes a lot of sense. Stabilizing 5 random > packages in one commit doesn't make sense. By all means push them all > at once, but don't commit them all at once. It isn't like we have to > pay for each commit. >
We already know that. But if e.g. ago runs his scripts at 00:00 with ~300 packages stabilized, the history (without git command line) on github/gitweb will be fun to read (and people DO that). The argument is that those are related changes to the subsystem "stable arch" (and affect not random ebuild details, but stable arch only, as in KEYWORDS). Ofc, people can still create atomic commits if the stabilization is security related.
