[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New review checklist
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
Re: New review checklist |
Date: |
Fri, 01 Apr 2022 08:30:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.3-1 |
Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 06:14 [+0200]:
> It won't be added to Guix. Here's why it won't.
> You appear to believe that
> [...]
> [ ] hard-coding the commit field is a good idea
Does the following count:
(define-public foo
(package
(name "foo")
(version "1.0.0")
(source
(origin
[...]
(file-name (git-file-name name version))
;; Upstream does not tag versions, see
;; <https://foo.bar/versions> for which commit
;; corresponds to which version.
;;
;; (alternatively)
;;
;; Upstream deletes old tags every N months,
;; so explicitly write the commit here.;
;;
;; (alternatively)
;;
;; There is consensus that the benefits of explicit commits
;; outweigh the downsides, see
;; <https://actually.I.dont.think.there.is.consensus?>
(commit "cabba9e..."))
[...]))
-- would the commit need to be let-bound here?
Greetings,
Maxime
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New review checklist, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2022/04/01
Re: New review checklist, tanguy, 2022/04/01
Re: New review checklist, Jonathan McHugh, 2022/04/01