From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Upgrade bedtools to 0.25.0. Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 18:48:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87d1tabq5o.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5690ACF3.7010206@uq.edu.au> <20160109095442.GB4285@debian> <20160109134419.GA19838@thebird.nl> <20160109163715.GA12060@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55623) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHxcZ-0002st-Af for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:48:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aHxcU-0002Cg-D9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:48:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160109163715.GA12060@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:37:15 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Andreas Enge Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" Andreas Enge skribis: > I do not have very strong feelings about the matter, but I do see the poi= nt > 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. Right. Another practical advantage is that, should the upgrade cause problems, we can simply revert the commit that does the upgrade without losing the other change. Ludo=E2=80=99.