[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 02/02: gnu: libidn: Update to 1.30.
From: |
Andreas Enge |
Subject: |
Re: 02/02: gnu: libidn: Update to 1.30. |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:56:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:53:56PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I reverted this because it triggered over 1330 rebuilds, and as far as I
> can tell there is nothing particularly urgent or compelling in this
> update. Therefore, I think it belongs in core-updates or some other
> branch. Does that make sense?
Good question. I pushed it at a time where none of our build slaves was doing
any work and thought it was a good way of occupying them. "guix refresh -l"
showed only 250 rebuilds, which, multiplied by 3 architectures, would have
given 750. It would be nice if "guix refresh -l" could be made to determine
the correct number.
Could we agree on a formal guideline of what can go into master and what
needs to go into core-updates? So far, the only official reason to use
core-updates was when touching base packages.
Should we add some limit of rebuilds? "guix refresh -l" shows less than
100 packages or so? (Then one can still use common sense depending on
the charge on hydra to renounce at a commit at a bad moment.)
Andreas