From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Brielmaier Subject: Re: 01/02: Revert "gnu: openssh: Clean-up custom install phase." Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:05:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20190626222130.32023.24888@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190626222130.F3AE520A01@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87d0izr2vu.fsf@netris.org> <87d0izd032.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hgPVb-0000Ju-SK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 04:11:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hgPVa-0000d6-Cw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 04:11:55 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([217.72.192.78]:47129) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hgPVZ-0000Yv-TF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 04:11:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87d0izd032.fsf@nckx> Content-Language: en-US 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" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice , Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On 6/27/19 8:16 AM, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Mark, > > Mark H Weaver wrote: >> I don't doubt that reverting these commits was the right thing to do, >> but it would be good to know _why_ they were reverted.=C2=A0 Can you pr= ovide >> a link to a relevant discussion, or else explain it here? > > They remove .../var/empty which breaks ssh-daemon. > >> In general, when reverting commits, I think it would be useful to >> include an explanation in the commit log.=C2=A0 What do you think? > > You're probably asking the wrong person.=C2=A0 I'm all for it.=C2=A0 It'= s not the > done thing in Guix, tho'. I don't think that the GNU standard forbids explanations additionally to the required change description. Personally I often miss this, because the commit description describes often only the obvious and not the _reasoning_ :( A good example for that are commit messages from IBM at the kernel :)