<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > Previously, we saw the same approach (everything causing stdenv > > rebuild gets merged at once) followed by niksnut and viric. And > > stdenv updates not following this practice were rolled back > > (sometimes by niksnut). > >Yes, I am aware of these facts. I intend to merge only those parts of >stdenv-updates that are stable. I do not intend to break 'trunk' by >performing a wild west merge. Furthermore, you are absolutely welcome to >contribute fixes and testing to stdenv-updates right now! Please help us >make sure that the branch is in great state so that it's in great shape >for the merge. The point is that merging only part of stdenv-updates means getting less out of a rebuild than can be got. > > Merge has significant one-time build overhead, so it doesn't occur > > without near-consensus. Ludo stated some conditions for merge. So, > > until he either finishes ensuring that these conditions are met or > > explicitly gives up, merging stdenv-updates branch is a bad idea. > >Well, if that is what Ludo meant to say, then I'll be glad, because that >means there is no problem at all! Ludo and anyone else is more than >welcome to commit any fixes and updates to stdenv-updates that he or she >likes. I am all for it! The main point is that the merge should not be rushed _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
