Re: Should commits rather be buildable or small

[Attila Lendvai]

> Preparing a large set of updates like this is already a great deal of
> work. It does not seem to me like a good use of volunteers' time to ask
> them to break such an update into hundreds of tiny pieces, especially
> not if the result is hundreds of broken commits to Guix.


fair enough. in that paragraph i did not consider the consts, only the benefits 
of the two approaches.

i myself also had headaches multiple times when i fixed something that needed 
to touch several different packages, and they would only work when applied in 
one transaction:

how many debbugs issues? multiple issues and record the dependencies? little 
gain for much more effort on both sides... but if one issue, then what should 
be the name of the debbugs issue? etc...

the contribution process has quite some accidental complexity, and it most 
probably turns away valuable potential contributors... which is something that 
is both hard to notice, and has a strong impact. but this has already been 
discussed in a long thread recently.

-- 
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“As long as habit and routine dictate the pattern of living, new dimensions of 
the soul will not emerge.”
        — Henry Van Dyke (1852–1933)