Hi, On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 at 18:55, Andreas Enge <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 03:25:17PM +0200 schrieb Simon Tournier: >> See #62967 [1] for an attempt. I am rebuilding to detect the potential >> problem. > > Not sure why we need a second issue... All this should work, let us wait > till after the core-updates merge.
Because it is two “mailing lists“ under the hood: guix-patches and bug-guix. As someone who digs (time to time, and not enough these days, oups!) to “forgotten” issues, I find easier to follow the discussion about one specific bug and the discussion about one specific implementation when they are separated – somehow it reduces the “noise”. Well, for example consider #58650 [1]. It is time-consuming to know if the PATCH is “forgotten“ or if it does not fix the issue and can be dropped. Moreover, the two patches of #58650 [1] does not appear if you follow only guix-patches; because the issue had not been marked +patch. Speaking about “forgotten” issues, #62967 (patch) does not mention #62954 (bug) and that is a kind of “mistake”, I agree. :-) Last, on the pragmatic side, I do not know if the CI is following bug-guix and if it tries to extract patches from it. (Yes, for this case it is not relevant; the patch is dropped by CI because it implies more rebuilds than the threshold.) Well, it’s a matter of taste. :-) 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/58650 Cheers, simon
