[libvirt PATCH 000/351] port libvirt to Meson build system

Peter Krempa pkrempa at redhat.com
Mon Jul 27 16:11:11 UTC 2020

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 15:02:10 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:44:25PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 01:59:00PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > Personally I'd really like to avoid squashing them, because splitting
> > > up big patches is not merely to benefit the initial pre-merge review,
> > > but to also benefit people who need to debug stuff that's already
> > > merged and understand the scope of the intended change. So being able
> > > to look back at the changes in isolation after commit is still a big
> > > plus point.
> > 
> > I would like to avoid squashing the patches as well and in most cases I
> > would object to it as well. I only suggested that to not break git
> > bisect.
> > 
> > If we don't care about git bisect and the fact that we would not be able
> > to build libvirt correctly within these patches I'm OK with pushing it
> > without squashing.
> git bisect reliabity is key, so I reluctantly think we'll need to
> squash. I don't want to hit a pathc in this series with a bisect
> and be unable to continue the bisect due to inability to build the
> code.

I agree. It's definitely necessary that the build is complete at any
point in time.

I'm reluctantly willing to accept that the build fails with an
appropriate error message until the build system is able to build
everything if we opt for commiting a patchset for simplicity. What's
off-limits is if build "succeeds", but is incomplete due to missing
steps in the implementation. I'm not going to want to guess which part
is already built or which isn't.

Given that the rewrite is a singularity anyways it doesn't really matter
that we will not be able to bisect problems caused by the build system
across the boundary.

More information about the libvir-list mailing list