John Kehayias <john.kehay...@protonmail.com> writes: > Hi Christopher and Maxim, > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 02:41 AM, Christopher Baines wrote: > >> 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? >> > > I should take some responsibility over what happened here as I had > volunteered as a sort of "branch manager" (to use the terminology > later in this thread) but I was a bit slower than I wanted. My plan > was roughly in line with what we are discussing, reviewing the > patches, pushing to a new "mesa-updates" branch, and then asking for > someone to start a build job. We could then have people more easily > test or just to check build for build failures and ensure good > substitute coverage upon merging.
Don't feel responsible for not doing things John, I'm advocating here for less haste and more caution.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
