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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>
>