Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small

[Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name>]

> > Define "buildable" and "unbuildable".
> 
> 
> I used these definitions: a buildable commit does not have build
> failures (or at least no new ones). An unbuildable commit introduces
> new build failures (in this case a lot of them).
> 
> Buildable commits are safe spots to land on with time-machine in the
> sense that the packages defined in them can be used. I expect it would
> be very painful to try jumping to past commits with time-machine if a
> large portion of the commits in Guix were unbuildable.

[...]

> I guess "required" here means that in some cases Guix's policy is to
> prefer small commits over buildable commits (with the previous
> definition). I at least don't see any technical reasons why it would be
> required. The question then becomes whether that policy applies in this
> case.


FWIW, this commit policy has always bothered me as a newcomer to Guix. pretty much everywhere else it's a major offence against your colleagues to commit something that breaks the build in any way.

-- 
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“I will probably be asked why I don't cite the author's name? Because my philosophy teacher taught me that it sometimes jeopardizes the effects of the quote.”
	— Author's name withheld.