From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48890) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg3lm-000899-Jm for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 02:50:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg3li-00053B-Ni for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 02:50:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46377) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dg3li-00052r-Kc for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 02:50:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dg3li-0003nW-2l for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 02:50:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#28020] [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-gitpatch. Resent-Message-ID: Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Arun Isaac Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:18:39 +0530 In-reply-to: References: <87wp6ekkef.fsf@gmail.com> <4b50a45a.ADkAACnAL5YAAAAAAAAAAAPejtMAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZjCOA@mailjet.com> <20170810120612.bi33kbdswgtktohr@abyayala> <20170810165517.nojmfy7j4busmwao@abyayala> <9b857f17.AEQAOV3jPRoAAAAAAAAAAAPU5Q8AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZjJhx@mailjet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: 28020-done@debbugs.gnu.org Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes: >> Also, having a staging branch to which all commits are made would help >> keep the master branch clean, and free of these mishaps. But, I guess >> this issue has been raised before, and the creation of such a staging >> branch has been postponed. > > Interesting. Do you have a link? We do have a ‘staging’ branch, but it > serves a different purpose (basically, ‘core-updates’, lite). I was referring to this thread discussing the stability of master. It's not about any staging branch like I proposed, but there are some similarities. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-07/msg00021.html > Since the commit message is already reviewed on the mailing list, such a > branch would only catch the — one hopes — very rare last-minute foul-up > by the committer themselves. > > ‘Someone’ would have to keep track of, review, and merge it. ‘People’ > would then start following that branch instead of master (Why let a typo > keep me from the shiny?), making rebasing just as painful. Agreed. > I'm less opposed to an optional hook, but fear that it will discourage > committers from making a habit of checking all their commits before that > last and final push. Which they should definitely be doing. Despite these concerns, I think it is still worth automating some commit checks. Given long enough time, even the most careful person is likely to mess up somewhere. > (That's not a dig at you or anyone personally — you're talking to the > reason for the /current/ pre-push hook, after all :-) No issues! :-)