Hi Christopher, Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes:
> guix-comm...@gnu.org writes: > >> apteryx pushed a commit to branch master >> in repository guix. >> >> commit 0be7838105806819f4586ec9130382a66a22880e >> Author: Kaelyn Takata <kaelyn.al...@protonmail.com> >> AuthorDate: Thu May 4 20:12:46 2023 +0000 >> >> gnu: mesa: Update to 23.0.3. >> >> * gnu/packages/gl.scm (mesa): Update to 23.0.3. >> [source]: Remove obsolete patch and update HTTPS url. >> [arguments]: Enable the crocus gallium driver. >> * gnu/packages/patches/mesa-fix-sporadic-test-failures.patch: Delete >> file. >> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Remove it. >> --- >> gnu/local.mk | 1 - >> gnu/packages/gl.scm | 14 ++++------- >> .../patches/mesa-fix-sporadic-test-failures.patch | 27 >> ---------------------- >> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > → guix refresh -l mesa > Building the following 1954 packages would ensure 4257 dependent > packages are rebuilt ... > > > I know there's been some discussion about changing processes regarding > changes like this that impact lots of packages, but as far as I'm aware, > the documented process hasn't changed yet. So should this have gone to > core-updates, and not been directly pushed to master? There isn't currently a core-updates branch, and I need to spend some time documenting the authorization process for how to create short lived Cuirass branches. I think ideally we would have created a 'graphics-team' or similar branch (even the team has yet to be formed) and let it build. Seeing the build machines were idling in the European night, I figured I could get away with it for this time. But the situation will repeat; I'd like to push some xorg updates that fix a CVE; we'll nead a 'xorg-team' branch or similar. Should we create these branches from the maintenance repository (permanent branches) ? -- Thanks, Maxim
