Hi Andreas, Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes:
> Hello Maxim, > > Am Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:50:12AM -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: >> That looks promising. Should we spun a differently named branch to >> avoid people sending core-updates change? This was discussed in the >> past and agreed to (main branches do not *freeze* themselves), instead >> we use git to branch to our will. > > well, I consider core-updates to be frozen, people should not send any > more patches there unless they repair things that are currently broken > (and, one may add, a regression to master). I do not expect this to > include any world rebuilding changes any more. > > And then the goal will be to not have a core-updates branch in the future, > but separate feature branches as discussed at the Guix days. > > So the aim is to merge core-updates to master, and then to delete this > branch once and for all. (Of course, there can then be a new feature > branch "core-team" or something like this, for changes concerning the > core of the system.) Thanks for the explanations. I'm out of the loop, not having been able to attend physically the last Guix Days event. Was there a recap of the discussions posted somewhere? Was the freeze announce somewhere? I wholly missed that, and I try to pay attention. > So I think there is no need to branch from the branch! > (And just as a reminder, let us not forget the staging branch that needs > a similar treatment.) OK! We could probably merge staging into master and be done already. -- Thanks, Maxim
