Hi Greg, On 6 May, Greg Hogan wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 12:34 AM Maxim Cournoyer > <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> wrote: (...) > > Since they are leaf packages, if they build and run fine (and ideally > > have been reviewed), I'd say go for it! (...) > Is QA able to process this branch, which has not been rebased since > the end of February? Also, these patches should have been (and still > could be) applied directly to master. From the manual [0]: > > The QA infrastructure recognizes such issues and lists the merge > requests on its main page. The following points apply to managing > these branches: > [...] > 2. Any changes that can be made on the master branch, should be made > on the master branch. If a commit can be split to apply part of the > changes on master, this is good to do. > [...] > > [0] > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Managing-Patches-and-Branches.html
I was hoping QA would process them eventually, but it never gets there due to our hardware constraints. So I'll apply them directly to master and get rid of the branch. I appreciate the manual says to do things on master, but I personally don't like it - I'd like to build on a feature branch, have QA confirm I haven't messed anything up (plus get substitutes) and then put the successful branch onto master. That feels safer to me - but yeah, our QA/CI infrastructure isn't sufficient. Thanks for the interest! Steve / Futurile
