Re: Let’s freeze and build ‘core-updates’!

[Marius Bakke]

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello Guix!
>
> Since I’m about to leave keyboard for a couple of weeks, here’s a to-do
> list for those of you who’ll be around.  :-)
>
> The last things I wanted to push for ‘core-updates’ were a reproducible
> Guile (done in b5efd14a9add1bcb4a44fa5b9c1b47706f3df9da), and a subset
> or all of the aarch64 patches, depending on their status (should not be
> a blocker IMO).
>
> So, here’s a plan:
>
>   • Once Efraim has pushed some of the aarch64 patches, do another
>     evaluation of the “core” package set for that branch, and check for
>     anything wrong.  From there on, forbid full-rebuild changes.
>
>   • Once the “core” subset builds correctly on all the supported
>     platforms (those that Hydra supports), merge ‘master’.  Maybe update
>     a couple of things like GnuTLS while we’re at it.  From there on
>     forbid non-trivial changes.
>
>   • Build all the packages.  (To do that, someone with access to Hydra
>     must change the “subset” argument to “all” in the config of the
>     ‘core-updates’ jobset.)
>
>   • Fix things.
>
>   • Once most regressions have been addressed and most binaries are
>     available, merge ‘core-updates’ into ‘master’.
>
> How does that sound?

This sounds great. I have a question:

The 'staging' branch contains a number of minor updates and it's been
more than a month since the last merge. Should we do a staging
evaluation first (i.e. next few days), or just merge it to core-updates?

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature