From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Upgrade bedtools to 0.25.0.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:37:15 +0100
Message-ID: <20160109163715.GA12060@debian>
References: <5690ACF3.7010206@uq.edu.au> <20160109095442.GB4285@debian>
	<20160109134419.GA19838@thebird.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37007)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aHwWJ-0007J6-Fr
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:37:40 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aHwWG-0000U2-AZ
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:37:39 -0500
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.134]:54250)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aHwWG-0000To-1U
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:37:36 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160109134419.GA19838@thebird.nl>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl>
Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" <guix-devel@gnu.org>

On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 02:44:19PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder if we are not being too prissy. Not exactly taxing
> to read it in one commit and we can trust the committer to test it. I
> see the point of agreed layouts and putting things in a *single*
> commit. Now, for a change, we need two.

I do not have very strong feelings about the matter, but I do see the point
of separating stylistic and syntactic changes on one hand from functional
changes on the other hand. Then one can simply accept the former without
further checking; and the latter does not require any checking since only
the version and the hash line have changed. Probably it would then be okay to
push these two commits directly without posting the patches to the list first.

Andreas