Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> writes:
On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Before I try to word it more carefully I'd like to hear some feedback
>> on this. What do you think?
>
> It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making
> rebuilds smarter. Instead of building tip of dist-git (which might
> never have been build), rebuild the last thing that *was* successfully
> built. There are a number of ways to potentially track this
> information[2].
Let's say I approach a package I need to bump and rebuild and the
latest successful build is 5 commits old. What do I do? Do I revert
the 5 commits and push a release bump on top? Or do I branch from the
latest working state and push a tagged commit to build it creating a
new git history for what was built (different to what was pushed by
the maintainer)?
Exactly. I think *this* is the problem that actually should be solved
because people pushing incomplete changes to dist-git is going to happen
regardless of what the policy says.
Thanks,
--Robbie