On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:30:52PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Hi, > > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 09:10:33PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > >> Felix Lechner <felix.lech...@lease-up.com> writes: > >> > With the core-updates process now abandoned, I retitled the issue to > >> > >> Could you share the reference of that? I'm not against it, but our > >> currently documented process still mention the good old staging and > >> core-updates branches. > > > > At the Guix Days in February, we discussed the branching workflow and > > reached a rough consensus that for non-core packages (defined in > > %core-packages), we should try to adopt a more targeted "feature branch" > > workflow. That's actually what we used to do, before we outgrew our old > > build farm, after which we were barely able to build one branch at a > > time (IIRC, we would stop building master in order to build core-updates > > or staging). > > > > The discussion was summarized by Andreas here: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-02/msg00066.html > > Thanks! I had missed it. It sounds promising! > > > Currently we are demo-ing this workflow in the wip-go-updates branch and > > go-team Cuirass jobset. > > So the review happens first on the ML, then the changes land to the team > branch, and then finally the feature branch gets merged to master? If > the review has already happened and the package been tested (and built > by QA), why is a feature branch needed?
So we can group a couple of larger related changes together. > > My hope is that we can rewrite the relevant documentation in the coming > > months, as we learn from these early efforts. > > OK! Thanks for allowing me to catch up! > > -- > Thanks, > Maxim > -- Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
