[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small
From: |
Lars-Dominik Braun |
Subject: |
Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Dec 2023 13:05:43 +0100 |
Hi,
> I'm planning on refreshing Guix's haskell packages as my fix for
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/66347 requires rebuilding all of them
> anyway. Should I try to keep commits small with only one update per
> commit (which is more work but managable if I don't care about the
> commits being buildable) or should I try to keep them buildable (i.e.
> update everything in one commit)?
so far I’ve been updating Haskell packages in bulk in a
single commit. See 49a320aaa6fb4c20d6b30c56c35a8c7ffceed822 or
b97f549b14402421fcfb360ddd4cff7de93b9af0 for example. I also used custom
scripts last time, because `guix refresh` was not sufficient to update
all fields required (arguments, inputs, …). This is hopefully different
this time.
Cheers,
Lars
- Should commits rather be buildable or small, Saku Laesvuori, 2023/12/08
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Tomas Volf, 2023/12/08
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small,
Lars-Dominik Braun <=
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2023/12/08
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Saku Laesvuori, 2023/12/10
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2023/12/10
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Attila Lendvai, 2023/12/10
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Ricardo Wurmus, 2023/12/10
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Attila Lendvai, 2023/12/10
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Philip McGrath, 2023/12/10
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Attila Lendvai, 2023/12/11
- Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small, Ricardo Wurmus, 2023/12/11