Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> This would allow each of the maintainers to better concentrate on
> selected sub-projects, and to increase the likelihood of having an
> active co-maintainer around when other co-maintainers are unavailable.
> We also hope that this change will decrease the importance of
Jakob L. Kreuze writes:
> Hi Dave,
>
> "Thompson, David" writes:
>
>> Agreed. Also this should be done in parallel eventually because
>> updating 24 machines serially is silly.
>
> Good idea. Do we have a Guix-specific API for parallelism, or should I
> look to the Guile manual section on
Hi Dave,
"Thompson, David" writes:
> Agreed. Also this should be done in parallel eventually because
> updating 24 machines serially is silly.
Good idea. Do we have a Guix-specific API for parallelism, or should I
look to the Guile manual section on Futures?
> This does bring up the question
Thanks a lot for sharing this, Pjotr, I'm thinking of applying for Next
browser! This could help a lot :)
Cheers!
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>
> Similarly, it would be great if “guix deploy” would continue deploying
> other machines in the list even if one of them couldn’t be deployed due
> to an error. I have a list of 24 machines and a few of them fail with
> the user-homes error
