Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Efraim Flashner skribis: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:11:38PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> >> More generally, we could try to have a “staging” branch for safe changes >> that involve a rebuild of between ~300 and ~1200 packages, that we’d >> merge more frequently than

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-15 Thread Leo Famulari
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 08:13:12PM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:11:38PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > > > More generally, we could try to have a “staging” branch for safe changes > > that involve a rebuild of between ~300 and ~1200 packages, that we’d > > merge

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-15 Thread Efraim Flashner
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:11:38PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > More generally, we could try to have a “staging” branch for safe changes > that involve a rebuild of between ~300 and ~1200 packages, that we’d > merge more frequently than ‘core-updates’ (I think the Nix folks do > that). By

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-13 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Leo Famulari skribis: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:13:32PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: [...] >> Yeah. I was thinking that we’d want to finish this core-updates cycle >> and then later do an ungrafting round or something. >> >> WDYT? > > That sounds good. I think we

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-12 Thread Leo Famulari
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:13:32PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 02:38:26PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Given that core-updates with Guile 2.0.12 is on its way and that master > >> is still at 2.0.11, I’d suggest to

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Leo Famulari skribis: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 02:38:26PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Given that core-updates with Guile 2.0.12 is on its way and that master >> is still at 2.0.11, I’d suggest to leave master as-is and focus on >> core-updates. >> >> There we have 2

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-12 Thread Christopher Allan Webber
Leo Famulari writes: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 02:38:26PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Considering that 2.0.13 fixes a bug that is exposed by grafting, it's a > bit of shame to provide it with a graft. But if we are too far along, > it's understandable. > > We could always un-graft it

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-12 Thread Leo Famulari
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 02:38:26PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Given that core-updates with Guile 2.0.12 is on its way and that master > is still at 2.0.11, I’d suggest to leave master as-is and focus on > core-updates. > > There we have 2 options: > > 1. Changing ‘guile-2.0/fixed’ to

Re: Guile 2.0.13

2016-10-12 Thread Christopher Allan Webber
Ludovic Courtès writes: > Given that core-updates with Guile 2.0.12 is on its way and that master > is still at 2.0.11, I’d suggest to leave master as-is and focus on > core-updates. > > There we have 2 options: > > 1. Changing ‘guile-2.0/fixed’ to 2.0.13, but 1,310 packages depend on it. > >